Homosexual families

[Absinthe]

None, why does that matter. I just know how important it is to have a father and a mother, not a fancy-mancy lady boy that thinks he's playing a role of both parents.

Piss off, twerp.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Don't bother trying to figure it out. He's just pretending to sound knowledgeable about things he has no clue about, but only comes off as incoherent.

 

[Darkside55]

It's not that I don't have faith in the people themselves to raise children, I'm just afraid that due to this more homosexual oriented people are going to start coming out of this increased number of homosexual parenting... for instance if you look at the ratio of straights to gays and homosexuality starts to become more prevalent, what is this due to? Are people simply starting to get more chemical imbalances or what? So if anyone has any info on why homosexuality is becoming more prevalent that would be great.

As the preceding posters have mentioned, the number of gay people in the world hasn't changed--it's simply that we acknowledge them. Gay people have been around since the dawn of man. Perhaps not since the time of Greece have homosexuals been so open and "out" in society.

edit: I forgot to restate what divorce and single parent homes had to do with the whole thing. Basically what I'm saying is that we're spending all of our energy into the issues surrounding homosexuality when more people are being negatively affected by the results of divorce. Now I'm not saying that everyone is negatively affected. all I'm saying that divorce in general is bad, and that issue needs to be addressed with equal might. It seems as though as though people are completely sidestepping the issue of divorce, and using homosexual equality as an excuse, the complete opposite of what darkside said i was doing. I was in no way saying that everyone who is raised in single parent families have any mental damage. So yea, someone said something about how homosexual parenting is more successful than single parent parenting, but as darkside stated as an example: So i guess the children raised under the authority of homosexuals must turn out being "super-children", ever seen that movie..."Baby Guinness" I think it was called. hehe

No one says they'll turn out to be super children. That's absurd. No one even says they'll turn out to be good or bad children. The point is that being raised by parents in any kind of relationship is done on an individual basis. I can say the same for children raised by straight couples, by children in single-parent households, or children from divorced households (although there was a study that said children from joint-custody homes are likely to be more manipulative than other children, but that's really neither here nor there).

Now let's switch focus for a minute, because even though this is a debate about homosexual parenting you're bringing divorce into it, and you're saying that we should "address the issue with equal might." Alright. What do you propose we do about it? What do you propose government should do about it? Outlaw divorce? Force people to go through loveless marriages solely for the sake of their children? Can you imagine how THAT could possibly affect a child negatively?

Or do you propose some kind of measure where people in frivolous and/or potentially unstable relationships are banned from marrying each other, to prevent divorce? Is that right? What about marriages that degrade over time and the breakup was unforseeable? What should we do about them?

Are you suggesting that the state or federal government provide marriage counseling? At what cost (monetarily)?

See the point is that you can't really do anything to mitigate divorce in this country, especially with today's society. And furthermore despite how bad it is you probably SHOULDN'T attempt to address divorce because in all of the above examples you would be limiting peoples' rights to do as they pleased. If someone wants to get married they should get married. If it doesn't work out they should have the right to get divorced and not be bound to something they don't want to do. This is what the law considers to be peoples' right.

On the other hand we are focusing on gay issues because there are rights being denied or being contested to them, rights which are available to everyone else but homosexuals are barred from or discouraged against, parenting in this case. "Should gays be allowed to raise children?" "Should we allow them the rights that straight couples and single persons are allowed?" So you can't address this issue with any equal might because it is in all respects unequal to the issue of gay parenting, or rather I should say inverse to the issue--the issue of mitigating divorce cases would be restricting a right people already have, whereas homosexual issues are attempting to grant (or limit) rights that others have, based on sexual orientation.

That's the worst kind of a man - the one that CHOOSES. He is born either straight or not. Males that feel they're attracted to other men aren't choosing anything, but they should consult a doctor about changing their gender, there's nothing bad in it.
But a guy that is able to be straight and suddenly "decides" that he's gay is a worst kind of a man, like i've said before.

Do you really assume that straight men can become gay? That suddenly they wake up one morning with the UNQUENCHABLE THIRST FOR BUTTSECKZ out of nowhere? Does that seem likely to you? Let me postulate something here, what is more likely: that a man suddenly chooses to become gay, going against all biological imperatives, going against the Selfish Gene (I will comment more on the Selfish Gene if you inquire, but this post is getting long already) and decides to have sex with other men, or is it more likely that that so-called straight man was really a closeted homosexual whose hormones always attracted him to men? What sounds more likely to you, honestly? If you believe that a person can choose his or her sexuality not only are you sorely mistaken but there's also a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you (which you may also inquire about).

I respect the freedom of speech, but the freedom of instincts is a bane to every human society that allows it.

Yes, yes. Repress your instincts, humans. For they are filthy and vile, and sometimes icky. They do you no good; it is much better that you were a machine.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Piss off, twerp.

Well said!

 

[CptStern]

None, why does that matter.

you seem to think your opinion is the correct one ...if so I'd like to know what exactly you're basing your opinion on ..first hand experience? scientific research? gut instinct? pure and unmitigated ignorance?

I just know how important it is to have a father and a mother,

well clearly it's not that important because somehow they failed to instill any sort of tolerance in you

not a fancy-mancy lady boy that thinks he's playing a role of both parents.

idiotic statements aside I still dont think your opinion holds any sort of basis in fact considering 25% of children are raised by their mothers ..going by your logic homosexuality should be a lot more prevelant than it is ..because so many children are being raised by "fancy-mancy lady girls" ( <- embarrassingly stupid)

That's the worst kind of a man - the one that CHOOSES. He is born either straight or not. Males that feel they're attracted to other men aren't choosing anything, but they should consult a doctor about changing their gender, there's nothing bad in it.
But a guy that is able to be straight and suddenly "decides" that he's gay is a worst kind of a man, like i've said before.

so you're saying that if a man chooses to be straight he's the worst "kind of man" ..sounds like you havent thought this through ..btw you didnt answer my question ...did you choose your sexual preference ..you seem to think all homosexuals choose theirs why isnt it the same for heterosexuals?

Yeah, like you.

at least I can articulate my arguments ..you on the other hand have given nothing to support your arguments besides a "ya because I say so" ..excuse me for not holding any stock in what you have to say as it's based on nothing more than fear and ignorance

 

[el Chi]

Sorry if this has already been asked but I have to question for those who consider a homosexual couple to be poor parents.

Let us say that a woman conceives whilst married to her husband, but early on during the pregnancy she admits that she is a lesbian and in love with another woman, whom she leaves her husband for.
The father, hurt by this (or for some other reason - remember this is hypothetical) says he wants nothing further to do with her or their child.
The child (I won't specify what gender) is born into a gay couple and it is unlikely they will have a male parent figure.
Should this couple be deemed unfit parents and have the biological child of one of the women forcibly taken away from them by the state?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Should this couple be deemed unfit parents and have the biological child of one of the women forcibly taken away from them by the state?

I know that question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway; No. And I can't understand how anyone would think so.

 

[Stigmata]

This is both highly amusing and deeply disturbing. Ugh, so much intolerance (mostly from Foxhound and Walter).

I believe one of the core foundational principles of the American constitution is to allow each citizen complete freedom so long as those freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others. Allowing gay couples to marry and raise children does not infringe on anyone's freedoms, does it? Does it suddenly damage a straight couple's ability to get married? Does it make it more difficult for a straight couple to adopt?

No. You can moan all you want, and disagree with it all you want, but taking such an adversarial stance against the idea of homosexuality in the family unit is taking a stance against the most fundamental principle of modern society.

 

[DaMaN]

This is both highly amusing and deeply disturbing. Ugh, so much intolerance (mostly from Foxhound and Walter).

I believe one of the core foundational principles of the American constitution is to allow each citizen complete freedom so long as those freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others. Allowing gay couples to marry and raise children does not infringe on anyone's freedoms, does it? Does it suddenly damage a straight couple's ability to get married? Does it make it more difficult for a straight couple to adopt?

No. You can moan all you want, and disagree with it all you want, but taking such an adversarial stance against the idea of homosexuality in the family unit is taking a stance against the most fundamental principle of modern society.

Quoted for pwnage.

 

[Qonfused]

I can't bring myself around to believe people actually believe in what they're saying; I never knew people thought this way.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm not 100% sure about my stance on the issue. But what I can say is that it's history repeating itself in a different way, at least on the majority side. Think about it, minorities wanting their rights, the majority makes them stuggle to hell before they get their rights. This is because people want to keep from changing in such a big way. I guess what the homophobes are scared of is one day letting their children befriend with children of gay parents and letting them go to their house or something fearing the mental 'contagiousness' (sp.?) of the gay parents on to their own children.

 

[ríomhaire]

I'm amazed that no one accused any of the people who seem to be slightly against homosexuality of being a closet gay this time.

 

[DaMaN]

I'm amazed that no one accused any of the people who seem to be slightly against homosexuality of being a closet gay this time.

... yet!

 

[Absinthe]

I'm amazed that no one accused any of the people who seem to be slightly against homosexuality of being a closet gay this time.

I often don't see that accusation.

That said, quite a few prominent gay bashers have turned out to be homosexuals themselves. So it might have some validity.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I often don't see that accusation.

That said, quite a few prominent gay bashers have turned out to be homosexuals themselves. So it might have some validity.

But it must be horrible for them, having to bash themselves, beating their own heads with baseball bats, screaming things at themselves in the mirror while holding "Aids is God's cure"-placards, it must be hell for them! So, you know, show some sympathy.

 

[Walter]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.
Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.
Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.
And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

 

[Absinthe]

As contemptible as such people are, I am sympathetic. They're like the gays that try so hard to "cleanse" themselves and will even go as far as electro-shock treatment (under the advisement of their church) to absolutely no avail. And they will accept what they eventually, or beat themselves into a severe state of mental dysfunction.

 

[kirovman]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.
Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.
Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.
And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

I think you were born in the wrong century...

 

[CptStern]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.

yes because god forbid we choose who we fall in love with ..not that it should be society in general's choice who we should love

Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.

yes because killing someone is exactly like being homosexual

Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane?

umm no the american psychiatric association long ago ruled that it was not a mental disorder ..but again you're an authority on the subject ..we should all just disregard years of research because some mental midget on the internets still clings onto idiotic notions of mental health

Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them.

ya well they can supress their urges if need be ..no amount of suppression will make you any smarter than you already are ....notw the sarcasm in my text

But i still think that such people need serious help.

you need help ..and I dont feel sorry for you

And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

:upstare: really I dont know where to begin ...your level of ignorance can only be achieved through years of ignoring the most basic principles of common sense and logic ..perhaps it'd be best to just let you coast through life mired in your own ignorance as no amount of logic/shock therapy will convince you otherwise

 

[gick]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.
Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.
Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.
And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

Oh boy.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.
Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.
Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.
And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

...

o/

 

[Absinthe]

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.

There's a massive distinction between the love for a brother and the love for a mate. You say the latter is inapplicable, but fail to coherently state why.

Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.

Killing out of necessity is an instinct. Humans do not have an automatic compulsion to indiscriminately murder people, and those that do are classified as mentally ill.

o Explain why homosexuality warrants a comparison to murder.

Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.

o Explain how homosexuals are mentally insane.

And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

God damn it, please. Make one comprehensive post that actually vaguely resembles an actual argument against homosexuality.

Here's a few more pointers to help you.

o How does homosexuality dishonor society and gays themselves?

o Homosexual couples' sexual orientations only affect themselves in any serious and relevant manner. It is non-violent and based on the consent of both parties. Since this is the case, why should homosexuals be banned?
Pro Tip: Religious arguments are not valid since not everybody shares the same faith, and the mere fact that something is "icky" to you does not constitute a rational argument.

o What evidence do you have that homosexual adoptions have a negative impact? Remember, your local minister is not a valid reference, and your gut is not an expert.

o What exactly are the "homosexual exploitations" you are referring to?

 

[Walter]

idiotic statements aside I still dont think your opinion holds any sort of basis in fact considering 25% of children are raised by their mothers ..going by your logic homosexuality should be a lot more prevelant than it is ..because so many children are being raised by "fancy-mancy lady girls" ( <- embarrassingly stupid)

Yes, such children have a hard time learning about life. They have to grow up quickly, only because one of his/hers parents has never been there for him.
"look here! no father! and he's grown up to be alright!" - if you hold this statement correct you probably never knew anyone who never had a mother or a father. They mostly look fine and behave too, but spiritually it leaves a scar for most, if not the whole life.

so you're saying that if a man chooses to be straight he's the worst "kind of man" ..sounds like you havent thought this through ..btw you didnt answer my question ...did you choose your sexual preference ..you seem to think all homosexuals choose theirs why isnt it the same for heterosexuals?

No, no. I mean...if you think that you're gay and act as one when you have nothing wrong with your hormones to do so, you're a worst kind of man. "Choose" was a wrong word placed by me here, sorry.
And as for my choosing, i don't think so. I am attracted to women, and feel no attraction towards men, never felt otherwise.

 

[Absinthe]

Yes, such children have a hard time learning about life. They have to grow up quickly, only because one of his/hers parents has never been there for him.
"look here! no father! and he's grown up to be alright!" - if you hold this statement correct you probably never knew anyone who never had a mother or a father. They mostly look fine and behave too, but spiritually it leaves a scar for most, if not the whole life.

Evidence.

No, no. I mean...if you think that you're gay and act as one when you have nothing wrong with your hormones to do so, you're a worst kind of man. "Choose" was a wrong word placed by me here, sorry.

Yes, and what kind of person willingly does this, aside from those who are simply having a lark?

There are plenty of homosexuals that pretend to be straight, which is understandable as they are a mocked and shunned minority by many. Cases going the other way around are so few and far between that I have no idea why you would even bring this up except as some kind of straw man.

And as for my choosing, i don't think so. I am attracted to women, and feel no attraction towards men, never felt otherwise.

So if sexual orientation is not something you choose, how do you propose we "help" these poor insane bastards? Put electrodes to their heads? Condition them with forced straight sex? Lock them away and drug them up?

 

[kirovman]

Walter, please refer to the Logical Fallacy thread.

 

[brink's]

I think we should create a Logical Fallacy Test that everyone has to take in order to enter this section of the forum.

 

[PvtRyan]

I often don't see that accusation.

That said, quite a few prominent gay bashers have turned out to be homosexuals themselves. So it might have some validity.

Ted Haggard being a fudgepacker was definitely one of the best surprises of 2006

 

[DaMaN]

Walter, please refer to the Logical Fallacy thread.

Quoted for appropriatness.

 

[DaMaN]

I find it increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who has not taken the previous arguments into account when posting. I find it doubly frustrating when said person takes no initiative whatsoever to put some FACTS behind his or her claim.

If you like another man, call him your friend. If you like him a lot, call him your best friend. And if you love him, call him your brother, NOT YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND.

If you like another person, call him a friend. If he is of a color other than white, call him a ******.

Homophobia is no worse than racism. People have no more control over what color their skin is than what gender they are attracted to.

If you want to continue with your line of argument, please address the scientific opinion that sexuality is determined biologically.

Freedom of instincts is when you let everything in you run loose. Killing is also an instinct, but then we have laws that put us to prison or even get us executed for commiting it.

Hmm... I guess there should be laws for restricting people of other ethnicities from running loose. Oh wait, that's discrimination!

Just stop talking. Please. It's for your own good. Either that or come up with a fact-based argument.

Why then, when openly claiming yourself to be gay, such people are tolerated as normal individuals, if they're mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, i'm not mad at them for being such, i feel sorry for them. But i still think that such people need serious help.

Why then, when openly proving yourself to be a moron, you are tolerated as a normal individual, even if you are mentally insane? Don't take me wrong, I'm totally mad at you for being such, and I do feel sorry for you. And I still think you need serious help.

(Look buddy, the mentally insane have just the very same rights that you, I, homosexuals, heterosexuals, members of all ethnic groups, people who have blue eyes, people who have brown eyes, etc, etc, have. The right to be treated equally REGARDLESS of your biologically determined traits.)

And things that basically dishonour not only our society, but gays themselves (like gay marriage and adoption for gay parents) should be banned. The only things i see in it are exploitations towards homosexual individuals. People making money on a poor soul, so to say.

And things that basically dishonor not only our society, but idiots themselves, (like you), should be banned. The only thing I see in posts like these are exploitations of common sense and a refusal to see any sort of sense whatsoever.

---

Before you post, think. Before you think (if you can call it that), research. Before you research, GET YOUR HEAD EXAMINED!!

 

[Stigmata]

Walter, stop ignoring the responses that you can't find flaws in. Make a goddamn concession already.

 

[CyberPitz]

I guess what it really comes down to in my opinion is, will homosexuals raising children benefit society. So far as i know there's no evidence to support either direction. What needs to be looked upon now is not the issues with the minorities but the issue with the majority i.e. single parent homes/divorce rates, we truly are a wounded society. Isn't anyone getting tired of all these damn homosexual threads, i mean seriously? Also i think you guys are trying to make this way too "cut and dry" it really isn't that simple; children are very impressionable, if they see someone do something they will try and mimic it, they want to be just like their parents it's undeniable. I'm a strong believer that homosexuality can be instilled into children. Don't any of you think that being around homosexuals your whole life might make you think that it's the norm, or what your "supposed" to be. Are you guys saying that a male child having 2 mommy's isn't going to make that child feminine and possibly come off (or actually be)gay, there's no question of whether a male child needs a father figure or whether a female child need a mother figures, isn't it obvious? I mean regardless of what scientist think, i think the matter to influence is blatantly obvious. But whatever, who cares right, my opinion is just the same as a bigots since i'm not going to throw down my values for a minority.

Obviously next to none of what i said is based off of scientific evidence, but how boring would life be if everyone let scientist think for them?

Yeah I know, lots of pages back. I was raised by my mother, and lived with 2 sisters. I'm proof of your post being so full of opinions that fail. I may not be the manliest of men, with ripped muscles, but I'm not gay, I'm not like a female either. It's not that I wanted to be like my father when I was a kid...Hell, I didn't want to be like my mom, either. I lived my life day to day, asking questions, and getting answers from a completely unbiased opinion. I was told God was real, or fake even. My mom told me it's a learning experience, and I'll feel the truth. I love her for that. But in all honestly, I grew up the way I wanted to..not the way people acted around me. If that was the case, I'd be a drunk/woman/asshole/gay*I had 3 gay friends as a kid..well, I don't think I'd call them gay, but they experimented...what kid hasn't? Well, they experimented alot of times Anyway, the fact is, I grew up to be a normal guy, I'm more open about my feelings, and I can joke about being gay perfectly fine, but that's because I grew up thinking no negatives about one thing...

So, sir, rethink yourself.

 

[JNightshade]

Oh man. This is like watching the Green Bay Packers take on a single palsy-addled kindergartener XD

 

[FieryGoose]

...I grew up to be a normal guy...

So basically you said that you aren't gay yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being gay is perfectly normal, yet, so is being straight, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up gay would you consider yourself to be abnormal?
Also a response to what I feel were personal attacks, specifically insulting my tolerance. I am not so much intolerant as I am simply not going to let people call my idea's idiotic and then simply switch my mindset, it's just not logical, not to mention the blatant lack of persuasive wording throughout the thread. What kind of debate would you guys be having with out guy like me representing the opposition to the obvious majority of pro-gay rights activist on this forum? Let me tell you it's hard to get my opinion out there without a mechagodzilla or capt. stern there to back me up but hey all opinions are valid regardless of how many people disagree with you, so please stop with the personal attacks and just stick to the topic.

Also I found this interesting since someone cited the wikipedia(not primary source information by the way) site: Biology and sexual orientation, as proof that homosexuality is biological and not a choice, but it appears very clear in the beginning of the article that no consensus (majority conclusion/agreement) has been reached biology does influence the matter of sexual orientation:

Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation.

b..b..b...but it just does somehow...:rolling: Oh Yae.

Also how is this even tested, I mean are they asking infants which sex they prefer? Are they asking people on the street if they decided to become gay? I guess thats real scientific... Pshh... It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that to sway me my dear friends.

 

[Absinthe]

So basically you said that you aren't gay yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being gay is perfectly normal, yet, so is being straight, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up gay would you consider yourself to be abnormal?

"So basically you said that you aren't black yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being black is perfectly normal, yet, so is being white, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up black would you consider yourself to be abnormal?"

A few substitutions in the wording effectively demonstrate how idiotic this kind of false dichotomy is.

And while everybody has opinions, not all opinions are valid. That's a foolish and dangerous idea.

 

[CyberPitz]

"So basically you said that you aren't black yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being black is perfectly normal, yet, so is being white, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up black would you consider yourself to be abnormal?"

A few substitutions in the wording effectively demonstrate how idiotic this kind of false dichotomy is.

And while everybody has opinions, not all opinions are valid. That's a foolish and dangerous idea.

Thank you Absinthe, I didn't want to have to slap him with that. Nowhere in my post did I say being a homosexual was "abnormal". Way to try to turn everything to your bidding, yet fail like a little girl.

 

[Qonfused]

All little girls fail by default?

 

[Que-Ever]

No, but they oftentimes fail in particularly spectacular fails.

 

[FieryGoose]

"So basically you said that you aren't black yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being black is perfectly normal, yet, so is being white, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up black would you consider yourself to be abnormal?"

A few substitutions in the wording effectively demonstrate how idiotic this kind of false dichotomy is.

And while everybody has opinions, not all opinions are valid. That's a foolish and dangerous idea.

Ok... nice try, you hit the nail right on the head...hehe, substituting words making my statement seem rather offensive isn't going to cut it, race and sexual orientation are not even remotely related therefore you cannot make my statement into a universal statement in order to disprove it. My statement pertains solely to the subject of homosexuality as far as i know. Please don't modify my statement, instead intelligently respond to the concept I proposed. That would be great, thanks.

 

[Stigmata]

So basically you said that you aren't gay yet your normal, people throughout this thread have stated that being gay is perfectly normal, yet, so is being straight, how can 2 polar opposites be completely normal at the same time? So just out of curiosity, if you grew up gay would you consider yourself to be abnormal?

A LIST OF POLAR OPPOSITES THAT ARE NORMAL:

• North and South poles of magnetic objects
• the Male and Female sex (FYI, gender != sex != intercourse)
• Black and White races
• Light and Shadow
• Heat and Cold
• Love and Hate
• Acid and Base

I do believe your argument is fundamentally and disturbingly flawed.

I am not so much intolerant as I am simply not going to let people call my idea's idiotic and then simply switch my mindset, it's just not logical, not to mention the blatant lack of persuasive wording throughout the thread.

There's a distinct lack of persuasive wording coming from the anti-homosexuality side of the debate, not ours.

What kind of debate would you guys be having with out guy like me representing the opposition to the obvious majority of pro-gay rights activist on this forum?

Not quite sure what you mean. I guess we wouldn't be having the debate in the first place...

Let me tell you it's hard to get my opinion out there without a mechagodzilla or capt. stern there to back me up but hey all opinions are valid regardless of how many people disagree with you, so please stop with the personal attacks and just stick to the topic.

Any personal attacks we've made are few and far between, nestled between heaps of logic and dismantling of flawed arguments. The reason it's hard for you to "get your opinion out" is because you have a very shaky conception of how to debate properly. This is evidenced through your failure to provide any evidence of any form showing that homosexual people have a negative impact on anything - the only reason anything should be banned. There is a reason we have similar concepts such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom so long as your freedom does not infringe upon another's".

And all opinions are NOT valid. If what you said was true, everyone would be right all of the time. Murder would be legal. Rapists would go unscathed. I believe the phrase you were looking for is more along the lines of "opinions are not automatically invalid" - this is true, but only holds up until we prove those opinions to be wrong.

Also i found this interesting since someone cited the wikipedia(not primary source information by the way) site: Biology and sexual orientation as proof that homosexuality is biological and not a choice, but it appears very clear in the beginning of the article:
b..b..b...but it just does somehow...:rolling: Oh Yae.

So because there is no conclusive proof yet, there's no chance that could be right, so we should just sweep that notion under the rug and never bring it up again in the coming years. Right?

 

[CyberPitz]

Ok... nice try, you hit the nail right on the head...hehe, substituting words making my statement seem rather offensive isn't going to cut it, race and sexual orientation are not even remotely related therefore you cannot make my statement into a universal statement in order to disprove it. My statement pertains solely to the subject of homosexuality as far as i know. Please don't modify my statement, instead intelligently respond to the concept I proposed. That would be great, thanks.

Why is it wrong to do that? It is the same idea behind it. Both are discriminated upon by the ignorant/fearful. They are one in the same when it comes to ideas, just one is finally getting ahead, while the other seems to have hit a stand still. And I do enjoy the fact that the only retort you had to my statement was that of an ignorant one.

 

[FieryGoose]

So because there is no conclusive proof yet, there's no chance that could be right, so we should just sweep that notion under the rug and never bring it up again in the coming years. Right?

No sir, I guess i was just a little naive to think that a bunch of people who posted saying that sexual orientation is absolutely not choice actual based their information on fact. Kind of like a unproven something disguised as fact...
Anyways. It could be right, it could be wrong, it just seems like everyone on replying to be is completely convinced that S.O. is biological without conclusive evidence for support, and just throwing the possibility that it could be choice out the window. I not trying to convert anyone to the "dark side" I'm just telling you all what i think. Simple as that.

Side note: Anyways about my "opinion" statement, not all statements are valid per say, but it's kind of hard for something not based on substantial evidence and merely personal views to be a failed perspective by default, when opinion are, in most cases subjective to the individual. Opinions are different than say...theories for example, some my have an opinion about a theory but their theory isn't an opinion. Everyone has their own opinions, there is no universal opinion on anything of the sort, therefore every opinion should be looked upon equally is basically what I'm getting at. I dunno.

Sorry for intruding on all ye faithful debaters and getting you all sidetracked, I'm not worthy for this discussion because I have only opinion to offer, apparently failed by default; eh... I'm also sure some of you are even ranked "master debater"...hehe (had to add that in). I hope that covers everything and makes you all happy.:thumbs:

I can't look at this thread anymore because I know my mental state will cause my physical state to reply and cause havoc. Blah.