Jump to content

Homosexuality - Gay Bashing?


deloriagod

Recommended Posts

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

 

 

False. They CAN reproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My opinion on this is that gay/bi people CHOISE to be become gay/bi, as how many gays where there before the media showed gays on the television alot, after that it peeked, so if you can be influenced into something, it is you're own choise, however I'm not against gay/bi people, but I just think they shouldn't be able to marry eachother, As marrying is something catholic, and it states in the bible that gay relations are sins.

 

 

 

And when you marry someone, you are supposed to be with them for the rest of your lives.

 

 

 

Yeah, theres something that people also overlook.

 

 

 

You call gay relations a sin, I'll pull the divorce card.

 

Well they could make a thing that commits them to eachother but just not marry (as thats christian) just like people who believe in Allah have another way of "marrying" as christians do, so gay people could do the same, make some kind of commitment to eachother, Just not Marrying in a way that has to do with christianity.

 

 

 

Ahh right, my bad, sorry.

 

 

 

And they do make a commitment in Britain, its called a Civil Partnership (or something like that), and to all those bashing gays, I sure hope you don't like Little Britain, and some other things.

swordfinalqr7.jpg

Denizen of Darkness| PSN= sworddude198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there are no real standards in nature and everything is chaotic then stop giving homophobes a bad rap; afterall it's just the standard they've made for themselves.

 

 

 

ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a distinction between being homophobic and disapproving of homosexuality. You out of at least respect for your own beliefs, will not ignore the heart of the question by throwing around stereotypes and arguments that look to be constructed by children.

 

 

 

Also I understand that your point was probably referring to a chaos in morality as well. We must identify the difference between morality and politics, most importantly the difference between what is right, and what is best for society. You may believe homophobia is alright if everything is chaotic and nothing is fixed, and you may be correct. It is not however healthy as a society to allow people to race around inciting hatred. This is why we have laws that protect various minorities. The question is not one of morality or even nature, it is a political question.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

 

 

False. They CAN reproduce.

 

Yes, and whats all this bull* about lifes only purpose here is to preproduce? I'm not here to preproduce, i'm here to live my life.If humans would lost their reproduction ability alltogether now, I wouldn't give a *. The less raven gaurd0's are running around and judging people because what they like to do in their bedroom and dare even say it in the bublic, the better.

Reality is hundreds of times more beautiful and more interesting than delusions. Fairy tales just tend to be easier to follow than the wonderful intricacies of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there are no real standards in nature and everything is chaotic then stop giving homophobes a bad rap; afterall it's just the standard they've made for themselves.

 

 

 

ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a distinction between being homophobic and disapproving of homosexuality. You out of at least respect for your own beliefs, will not ignore the heart of the question by throwing around stereotypes and arguments that look to be constructed by children.

 

 

 

Also I understand that your point was probably referring to a chaos in morality as well. We must identify the difference between morality and politics, most importantly the difference between what is right, and what is best for society. You may believe homophobia is alright if everything is chaotic and nothing is fixed, and you may be correct. It is not however healthy as a society to allow people to race around inciting hatred. This is why we have laws that protect various minorities. The question is not one of morality or even nature, it is a political question.

 

 

 

I think I get what Insane was saying then.

 

 

 

"Because I believe the world is chaotic, how can it be bad to be homophobic?" Is that what he meant?

 

 

 

I know it's a very contradictory answer, but It is ok in theory to be homophobic, racist, to be prejudice. Nothing matters in chaos. But as you said Satenza, there is a difference between the reality of society, and what happens in nature. There are some things we cant control. Take weather for example. The storms happen, and we dont have anything to do about it but it's all about how we deal with the natural storm that matters.

mergedliongr0xe9.gif

Sig by Ikurai

Your Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find polygamy to be on an equal standing with gay rights, There both about ones relationship with others And both concern the idea of love.

 

A few similarities isn't enough to give the two equal standing.

 

 

 

A lot of rights (women's, black, divorce, abortion, etc) concern relationships and love, to consider them all on equal ground because of those two similarities would be ridiculous.

 

 

 

Polygamy and arranged marriages are both also equal in my eyes. Polygamy im most cases was becuase of love, were as arranged marriages arent, but they cant turn into love. They both stand on equal footing to me with relationships.

 

You say polygamy is about love but arranged marriages are not, yet you call them equal? :roll:

 

You're comparing apples and oranges here, and you're dead wrong in considering them equal.

 

 

 

If you allow one you should allow them all.

 

What the hell are you going on about? If we allowed "all rights" in our society, then people would have the right to kill, rape, abuse, enslave, discriminate, etc.

 

 

 

For example, I'll use a drug analogy. Caffeine is a recreational drug that is legally and socially allowed in the West. Because caffeine is allowed, should we also allow heroin, cocaine, ketamine, speed, etc.?

 

And vice versa? Heroin is not allowed -- does that mean caffeine should not be allowed? Does that mean that morphine, Advil, and other "medical" drugs should also not be allowed because heroin is not?

 

 

 

There are a variety of valid arguments as to why drugs should be allowed or not, but using the argument that "One is allowed, so all others should be too" is a moot point and will get you nowhere.

 

 

 

Same goes for people's rights. They are all different, and each must be accepted individually. We cannot simply accept all rights blindly and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polygamy and arranged marriages are both also equal in my eyes. Polygamy im most cases was becuase of love, were as arranged marriages arent, but they cant turn into love. They both stand on equal footing to me with relationships. If you allow one you should allow them all.

 

What on earth...? Arranged marriages is a form of slavery.

 

You can't put it in the same line with adult peoples own choice of marrying someone, be it polygamic marriage or monigamic marriage.

 

 

 

Rebdragon, I thought that banning raven was a bit extreme.. but then I read his post him calling homosexuals "nothing but a feral, worthless animals"

 

I bet the guy is a rasist too..

 

 

 

Arrange marriages is most cases is for the benifit of all parties involved, This is an outside concept to people here in the us and Europe that believe love is the most important thing. Arrange marriages has a far less divorce rate then regualr marriages. And just becuase a marriage is arranged doesnt mean someones being treated unfairly, both parties are pushed into this, Neither side says oh I want that girl make her marry me. In most all cases its desided even before the children are born.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polygamy and arranged marriages are both also equal in my eyes. Polygamy im most cases was becuase of love, were as arranged marriages arent, but they cant turn into love. They both stand on equal footing to me with relationships. If you allow one you should allow them all.

 

What on earth...? Arranged marriages is a form of slavery.

 

You can't put it in the same line with adult peoples own choice of marrying someone, be it polygamic marriage or monigamic marriage.

 

 

 

Rebdragon, I thought that banning raven was a bit extreme.. but then I read his post him calling homosexuals "nothing but a feral, worthless animals"

 

I bet the guy is a rasist too..

 

 

 

Arrange marriages is most cases is for the benifit of all parties involved, This is an outside concept to people here in the us and Europe that believe love is the most important thing. Arrange marriages has a far less divorce rate then regualr marriages. And just becuase a marriage is arranged doesnt mean someones being treated unfairly, both parties are pushed into this, Neither side says oh I want that girl make her marry me. In most all cases its desided even before the children are born.

 

 

 

Two points to make (little OT but oh well):

 

 

 

1. There's a difference between an arranged marriage and a forced arranged marriage. The former is a cultural thing, I can see the practicalities of it even though it's a bit weird but hey, it seems to work for some people. The latter is barbaric.

 

 

 

2. Arranged marriages might have lower divorce rates, but if this is because there are extreme social pressures from the families not to divorce (very often the case, lots of cases in the UK about this recently) then the statistic is meaningless and doesn't reflect how successful the marriage is.

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find polygamy to be on an equal standing with gay rights, There both about ones relationship with others And both concern the idea of love.

 

A few similarities isn't enough to give the two equal standing.

 

 

 

A lot of rights (women's, black, divorce, abortion, etc) concern relationships and love, to consider them all on equal ground because of those two similarities would be ridiculous.

 

 

 

Polygamy and arranged marriages are both also equal in my eyes. Polygamy im most cases was becuase of love, were as arranged marriages arent, but they cant turn into love. They both stand on equal footing to me with relationships.

 

You say polygamy is about love but arranged marriages are not, yet you call them equal? :roll:

 

You're comparing apples and oranges here, and you're dead wrong in considering them equal.

 

 

 

If you allow one you should allow them all.

 

What the hell are you going on about? If we allowed "all rights" in our society, then people would have the right to kill, rape, abuse, enslave, discriminate, etc.

 

 

 

For example, I'll use a drug analogy. Caffeine is a recreational drug that is legally and socially allowed in the West. Because caffeine is allowed, should we also allow heroin, cocaine, ketamine, speed, etc.?

 

And vice versa? Heroin is not allowed -- does that mean caffeine should not be allowed? Does that mean that morphine, Advil, and other "medical" drugs should also not be allowed because heroin is not?

 

 

 

There are a variety of valid arguments as to why drugs should be allowed or not, but using the argument that "One is allowed, so all others should be too" is a moot point and will get you nowhere.

 

 

 

Same goes for people's rights. They are all different, and each must be accepted individually. We cannot simply accept all rights blindly and hope for the best.

 

 

 

So your saying love isnt love if its with more then one person? There in exactly the same roles, and do exactly what the other one would. Fill a person personal relationship with others.

 

 

 

 

 

Same thing as above, the take the same roles. You cant say there totally differant when you can replace one with the other and have the same situation. Just because they dont have the same Ideals doesnt make it not the same thing. Same with your fruit analogy there, there fruits they fill the same role as fruit!

 

 

 

 

 

That was in refferance to the things mentioned, but no it wasnt just limited to them, and we already had this disicion a while back that we would only put things that didnt hurt others into this catagory.

 

 

 

And drugs are hypocritical, If we ban one we should ban them all if the side effects are similar. Cigarettes and pot, Mostly all the same side effects yet cigarettes arent illegal, I think thats wrong Either make them both Illegal or legal.

 

 

 

Also drugs have specified roles, they cant be all universally changed.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying love isnt love if its with more then one person?

 

When did I say that? :-k

 

 

 

You cant say there totally differant when you can replace one with the other and have the same situation.

 

How can you replace gay rights with polygamous rights and have the same situation?

 

 

 

And drugs are hypocritical,

 

Huh? :-s

 

 

 

If we ban one we should ban them all if the side effects are similar. Cigarettes and pot, Mostly all the same side effects yet cigarettes arent illegal, I think thats wrong Either make them both Illegal or legal.

 

The side effects are nowhere near the same -- just like polygamous and gay rights movements are nowhere near the same.

 

 

 

Caffeine and heroin are both addicting -- does that mean we should lump them both into the same legal and social "acceptance" categories? Should a caffeine user be as "bad" as a heroin user solely because potential for addiction exists in both drugs?

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that you can't put all of these concepts into the same category solely because of a few similarities. In this case, you can't put gay rights into the same category as polygamous rights just because the concept of love and relationship exists in both gay/polygamous movements.

 

 

 

Also drugs have specified roles, they cant be all universally changed.

 

Rights movements have specified roles and can be "all universally changed". (same goes for drugs, of course, but that isn't the subject of this discussion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your saying love isnt love if its with more then one person?

 

When did I say that? :-k

 

 

 

You cant say there totally differant when you can replace one with the other and have the same situation.

 

How can you replace gay rights with polygamous rights and have the same situation?

 

 

 

And drugs are hypocritical,

 

Huh? :-s

 

 

 

If we ban one we should ban them all if the side effects are similar. Cigarettes and pot, Mostly all the same side effects yet cigarettes arent illegal, I think thats wrong Either make them both Illegal or legal.

 

The side effects are nowhere near the same -- just like polygamous and gay rights movements are nowhere near the same.

 

 

 

Caffeine and heroin are both addicting -- does that mean we should lump them both into the same legal and social "acceptance" categories? Should a caffeine user be as "bad" as a heroin user solely because potential for addiction exists in both drugs?

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that you can't put all of these concepts into the same category solely because of a few similarities. In this case, you can't put gay rights into the same category as polygamous rights just because the concept of love and relationship exists in both gay/polygamous movements.

 

 

 

Also drugs have specified roles, they cant be all universally changed.

 

Rights movements have specified roles and can be "all universally changed". (same goes for drugs, of course, but that isn't the subject of this discussion)

 

 

 

How are they not the same? People should have the right to marry who or how ever meny people as they want if they have the right to marry a person of the same sex.

 

 

 

Agian, Caffine and Heroin arent interchangeable. You cant stick heroin in a can of pop and get the same effects. Caffine also isnt as addictive as Heroin by a long shot. should we ban TV? thats addictive. If a drugs a drug label it a drug, but also dont forget what its uses are.

 

 

 

There not just a few similarities they fill the same exact role. Polygamist and gay marriage are exactly the same roles. the same with Gay marriage and arranged marriage.

 

 

 

Anything that is used to fill the same role isnt just a few similarities they are the same. Just because they dont hold the same ideals and theres stigmas agianst them dosent make them any differant.

 

 

 

Its like saying a black man is not the same as white man. Or a apple tree is not the same as an orange tree, they are both trees that fill the same role.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago)

 

Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy.

 

 

 

You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons].

flobotst.jpg

Hegemony-Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, don't animals that eat apples not eat oranges? So they don't fit the same role.

 

 

 

And this actually may have been explained earlier, but I saw a few pages back that "Gays are ruining society" or something. How, exactly?

whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago)

 

Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy.

 

 

 

You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons].

 

 

 

This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago)

 

Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy.

 

 

 

You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons].

 

 

 

This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable.

 

So marrying women is acceptable? does that mean the amount of rapes are increased? does that mean we should make it illegal to marry women, so it is more socially unacceptable, so that way there won't be people raping women?

 

This may be a bad comparison, but if drugs were made legal, all the crimes relating to them would cease to exist.

flobotst.jpg

Hegemony-Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable.

 

 

 

You make no flippin' sense. How does the fact that some Spartan men had gay relationships, but still reproduced with females, relate to pedophilia? Furthermore, how does pedophilia relate to gays in such a way that giving them the right to marry and therefore satisfy their sexual desires with a partner increases it?

p2gq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Lionheart, I can.

 

 

 

They are counterproductive to 2 billion years of nature. Nature on earth, without religion, has but one purpose: To reproduce.

 

 

 

Gays cannot reproduce.

 

 

 

Therefore, gays are going against nature. Counterracting 2 billion. TWO BILLION years. Let me spell that out. 2,000,000,000 years of work that they are reversing.

 

Where'd you get that number? for a start the homo genus (no pun intended) has been around for roughly 4 million years. Homo sapien sapiens first showed up less then 100000 years ago. If you meant any type of life, that's also wrong. For animalia showed up around 300 million years ago (may be off by a bit, i took this course a while ago)

 

Earths current human population is over 6 billion. Thousands starve each day, thousands die of diseases we already have cures for, but they can't afford, countries are massively overpopulated, and you're saying that gays will essentially ruin life. It's not like the percentage of homosexuals have gone up, and it seems like humans are one of the most successful animals on the planet, in terms of growth. another thing is is if the homosexuals were straight, and did produce even one child in their lifetime then the population of the world would go up even more. Joy.

 

 

 

You and a few other people were saying you hate how all gays are outspoken and flamboyant and whatever, well that's a stereotype. I'm an atheist, and if i were to think that all catholics are like you, just because of a few people, well, then i would think all catholics are ignorant [wagons].

 

 

 

This is where I need to touch on trends, The spartans were one of the greek states that had gay relationships, there tho started when the boys were under 10. Those boys would grow up have kids, but the whole time remain in the military and with there gay compatriots. Paedophilia is something thats present in society, giving gay rights would only encourge this more. No, im not saying all gay men are paedophiles and im not stating all straight men are. Im saying that It will increase the numbers and the chances of someone finally making to seem like its acceptable.

 

So marrying women is acceptable? does that mean the amount of rapes are increased? does that mean we should make it illegal to marry women, so it is more socially unacceptable, so that way there won't be people raping women?

 

This may be a bad comparison, but if drugs were made legal, all the crimes relating to them would cease to exist.

 

 

 

Im saying theres evils no matter what, but Marriage with a man and women is needed for out society and species to survive. Anything that isnt that is unneeded and only causes more problems.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last i checked marriage wasn't required for reproduction.

 

 

 

but outside of marriage conditions exist for less then a stable life.

 

 

 

Very few societies are able to pull off kids without marriage, and as you see im our societies it leads to state sponcered aid which causes harm to everyone in the form of taxes and money spend on things that could be put to better use if that didnt exist.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and a stable life is necessary for reproduction?

 

Marriage, is fairly new in terms of human history, and we've survived 10s of thousands of years without it.

flobotst.jpg

Hegemony-Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im saying theres evils no matter what, but Marriage with a man and women is needed for out society and species to survive. Anything that isnt that is unneeded and only causes more problems.

 

 

 

I'm too lazy to read through the thread, and apologies if it was already said, implied, or if you are already aware of it, or if it wasn't even the intention of your post:

 

 

 

You are aware that homosexuality is not on an extremely large scale that threatens population, right? In order for homosexuality to some how 'wipe out humanity' or even inflict serious damage on population, an extremely large population of homosexuals would be needed. Obviously not everybody or many people are homosexual, so the 'population damage' argument is not valid.

 

 

 

And let's consider a world that is100% homosexual, don't you think that people would devise a system to handle this, such as mass sperm banks and mass sperm injections for the sake of their own survival? Remember, we're talking about humans here, not rabbits or some other species that is stupid.

 

 

 

Again, apologies if that wasn't the intention of your post.

 

 

 

Also, could I have a source on "1/10th of all people" are homosexual?

happiehour.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and a stable life is necessary for reproduction?

 

Marriage, is fairly new in terms of human history, and we've survived 10s of thousands of years without it.

 

 

 

Its needed to limit any degridation to society. who says there hasnt been forms of marriage since the begining? theres no evidence either way, or current "thoughts" on "normal" marriage maybe not.

Sirhappy2002.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres no evidence there's a god, so does that mean a god exists?

 

I have seen non-married couples work perfectly well, and seen dozens of married families fall apart

 

EDIT: So if something is considered more acceptable, and homosexuals are allowed to marry, then why would more rapes and acts of paedophilia increase? if anything they would go way more down.

flobotst.jpg

Hegemony-Spain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its like saying a black man is not the same as white man. Or a apple tree is not the same as an orange tree, they are both trees that fill the same role.

 

My point is, caffeine and heroin are both DRUGS, but to call them equal or even put them in the same category would be ridiculous. Gay rights movement and polygamous rights movement are both a form of free right movements, but, like with caffeine and heroin, it would be ludicrous to consider them equal or interchangeable.

 

 

 

This is getting nowhere. :wall:

 

 

 

Im saying theres evils no matter what, but Marriage with a man and women is needed for out society and species to survive. Anything that isnt that is unneeded and only causes more problems.

 

Marriage is not at all needed for human/animal survival.

 

Are you suggesting we should only live with what is needed? What about government, laws, caffeine, video games, chairs, marriage, clothing, internet, language, showers... These are all unneeded for human/animal survival yet many of them are things we enjoy and even find benefitial.

 

 

 

Humans live in a world with much that is not needed but still desired.

 

 

 

who says there hasnt been forms of marriage since the begining? theres no evidence either way, or current "thoughts" on "normal" marriage maybe not.

 

You can't be serious... :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.