Homosexual families

[Absinthe]

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,

Wrong.

Just because two things are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't exist on the same level. Eating meat is normal, but so is eating vegetables. Liking the color white is normal, but so is liking the color black. Being thin is normal, but so is being fat. Being born with green eyes is normal, but so is being born with blue. Men and women. Hot and cold temperatures. Et cetera, et cetera.

You're propping up heterosexuality and homosexuality on some kind ridiculous dichotomy that if one is normal, the other can't be. That's absolutely retarded.

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.

I did respond intelligently. If you can't see the relevance of my modifications, then you need to start thinking harder. Both your skin color and your sexual orientation are things you are born with. If you seriously want to contend homosexuality as something you aren't necessarily born with (the only other explanation being an innate disposition), then at the very least you have to admit that it is not something within a person's control. Neither your skin color or your sexual orientation are harmful to others by nature. And while both groups are minorities, you cannot say that being black is abnormal. So why separate homosexuality from that? There's absolutely no reason to.

If you take issue with my comparison, then by all means, discredit it instead of brushing it off.

 

[DaMaN]

Ok, so since people seem to have differing opinions about whether or not homosexuality is biological, here's what I could dig up about it. Make your own conclusions, and even better do some more research.

Biology and sexual orientation

Sexuality researchers are often interested in homosexuality because there is evidence from twin studies that there is a biological involvement. Yet homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint because homosexual sex does not produce children.

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.

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as an homosexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environment factors.

Of further interest in the article are Empirical Studies, including the Twin Studies and Studies of brain structure.

In particular:

Researchers in the Breedlove study found evidence correlating prenatal hormones to male homosexuality. Males exposed to high levels of androgens (sexual hormones) as fetuses are predominantly homosexual.

On the opposing argument (nurture > nature)

This type of theory holds that the formation of gender identity occurs in the first few years of life after birth. It argues that individuals can be predisposed to homosexual orientation by biological factors but are triggered in some cases by upbringing. Part of adopting a gender identity involves establishing the gender(s) of sexual attraction. This process is analogous to the "imprinting" process observed in animals. A baby duckling may be genetically programmed to "imprint" on a mother, but what entity it actually imprints upon depends on what objects it sees immediately after hatching. Most importantly, once this process has occurred, it cannot be reversed, any more than the duckling can hatch twice.

A sort of reverse sexual imprinting has been observed in heterosexual humans; see the section on the "Westermarck effect" in Behavioral imprinting.

Several different triggers for imprinting upon a particular sexual orientation have been proposed.

A common hypothesis, especially among non-scientists, is that something about what young children see in the gender-roles behavior of adults, or some differences (possibly unconscious) in the way adults treat young children, somehow influence or determine a child's eventual sexual orientation.

This hypothesis, however, has not been supported by research findings that children of homosexuals are just as likely to be heterosexual as the general population and in reverse for children of heterosexuals in prevalence of homosexuality.

Of further concern to the argument of choice and sexual orientation:

The debate over choice and sexual orientation addresses the issue of the degree to which sexual orientation is genetically determined (i.e., unaffected by experiences or conscious choices); and also whether orientation can be affected by choices made by adults (or adolescents). The issue is an extremely controversial and significant one, for social, political and religious reasons.

Ethically (or morally), if it is a matter of choice - that is, if a person can choose whether or not to be gay (either because there are no orientations or because orientations can reliably be changed through psychotherapy or some other method) - then those who consider homosexuality to be harmful would see this as evidence that acting on homosexual urges is immoral.[citation needed] If, on the other hand, sexual orientation proves to be a genetic or biological trait that generally cannot be changed, many people will see this as evidence supporting the opposing view that homosexuals should not be criticized for being what they were born to be, and that their sexuality and inclination is part of their essential being and should be respected. For those who do not see homosexuality as harmful, the question of whether or not it is the result of a conscious choice is irrelevant.

Currently, the scientific view is:

Though science currently has no definitive answer to the question, evidence seems to suggest that sexual orientation is the result of a combination of environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological factors. In other words, there are many factors that contribute to a person's sexual orientation, and the factors may be different for different people.

Homosexuality and bisexuality are not completely determined by the way a child was reared by his or her parents, or because of having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young, as has been thought. The causes are much more complex.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) declassified homosexuality as a clinical condition and removed it from their books (including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) in the late 1970's. Research that supported its classification as a clinical condition was often biased by involving individuals who were already in therapy. Broader research was less supportive of the contention, finding many people who were happy and functional without heterosexuality.

Homosexual behaviour is common in the wild and appears to arise naturally in thousands of species which are not subject to the same psychological and environmental pressures as humans.[2] However, differences between humans and other animals have been shown to result in different sexual behaviour.

Refering to the wild and natural part of the latest paragraph:
Were homosexuality something completely confined to human social rearing, we would probably not see it in the animal kingdom. Of course, as the following quote shows, human behavior is considered distinct from orientation.

Homosexual behaviors in animals:

Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[11] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.

• Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertilized egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[31] German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexual behaviour among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand.
• Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." [citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)
• "Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."
• Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males among whom homosexual behavior is common and "effeminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior.

Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction difficult to ascertain, given the barrier of language to the subjective experience, and so is still being explored.

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ethical/Moral Issues on next post

 

[DaMaN]

Ethical/Moral Issues:

Since it has been shown that while biology does play a large factor in sexual orientation it is not conclusive (yet), the natural course of action points in the direction of the moral and ethical questions raised. (In this section I'll use the term are/choose in regards to homosexuality, as it has not been conclusively proven, and in any case, ethically, it should not matter, as heterosexual males can engage in homosexual acts as well.)

Firstly, it is a person's right not to have any of their rights taken away. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Thus, regardless if you are homosexual or heterosexual, one has the rights entitled by the UDHR. (We can define homosexuality as either other opinion, social origin, birth, or other status, but regardless these rights are entitled without distinction of any kind, so the definition is moot).

Secondly, it is stated in Article 12 that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

In regards to the discussed issue, no one's privacy shall be interfered with. Unless you are willing to define sexual practices as being public information, this article clearly states that it is against human rights, and therefore can be deemed unethical. Hence, interfering with a person's sexual practices (be they homosexual or heterosexual) is unethical.

Article 25 section 2 states:

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

We can see immediately that not all children benefit from the same social protection. Some families are richer or poorer. But the child has the right to a parent(s), and nowhere does it state that different sexual practices reduces special care and assistance.

Some might point to Article 26 Section 3 as the right of homosexual parents to brainwash their children into being homosexual themselves:

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

However, logic dictates that since it is difficult for homosexual parents to have a child on their own and that thusly they would be forced into adoption, that proper adoption screening would apply and filter out "homosexual puritists" (does such a thing exist?). Regardless, it is the parent's right to choose what education they want for their children. However, it is also the children's right to refuse said education. Think of homosexual children being educated in heterosexual practices.

Finally, Article 30 states:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This clearly states that even if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality and what people do in their beds, nobody has any right to refuse them the rights set out in the UDHR.


As a side note, since money runs the world and buisinesses run the money:

In countries where business structures have a significant degree of autonomy from a government, the companies have often been at the forefront in treating gay men and women equally. In the United States, the level of equal parity is much more common in business structures than governments. As of 2005 approximately 45% of companies within the Fortune 500 offered domestic partner benefits and nine of the top ten companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies.

---

If you read the above, I commend you. If you haven't, to recap:

You can't tell people what to do with their own equipment.

 

[Walter]

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.

what the hell does ethnicity got to do with this topic?! i'm talking about instinct, you prick!

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.

are you an idiot?

(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.)

In other words you attempt to force everyone into believing that being gay is allright. Yes, mentally insane have same rights to act freely, as long as they don't pose a threat to the society. Gays POSE a threat to it, by demoralising it, and furthermore forcing everyone to accept different norms in life.

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.

Common sense? Did people suddenly forget what is a family codex?

I think YOU should shut up. Your words are as empty as air, and at the moment only you look like a careless moron that tries to convince people about homosexuals being fitting for the society.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

At the risk of repeating myself:

Bigot.

 

[Walter]

...hide.

The only way i think otherwise than that it's harmful to society, is when the majority of it accepts homosexuality as right. But those who have any common sense should understand that it shouldn't be shown in public, in threat that it might make other individuals, which are not tempted of homosexuality by hormones or anything simmiliar, to accept such behavior as moral for themselves.

 

[Darkside55]

Can I just totally skip the well-written argument where I pick this guy apart piece-by-piece and go straight to insulting him and insinuating that he may in fact be a repressed homosexual and/or was molested by a gay uncle as a child? It'd save me a lot of time and forum space.

 

[Neutrino]

...hide.

The only way i think otherwise than that it's harmful to society, is when the majority of it accepts homosexuality as right. But those who have any common sense should understand that it shouldn't be shown in public, in threat that it might make other individuals, which are not tempted of homosexuality by hormones or anything simmiliar, to accept such behavior as moral for themselves.

Uh....say what? You're arguing that it's possible for homosexual people to convince others to become homosexual simply by existing in the public eye?

And what evidence, pray tell, do you base such an assumption upon? Do you also think that you get a free toaster for "turning' homosexual?

But seriously, your conclusions about human sexuality and the nature of homosexual versus heterosexual tendencies is tenuous at best, and bording on the absurd at worst. Again I ask what you base this idea on that a person could be "tempted" into homosexual behavior by the mere observation of a homosexual act? Observational evidence? Psychological? Biological?

Personally, last time I saw two men kiss each other I didn't feel any particular urge to suddenly abandon by attraction to women. Going the other way, homosexuals are constantly surrounded by heteosexuals but somehow don't magically become heterosexual as a result of this exposure.

If you have a solid, logical reason for such a statement then I'm certainly willing to listen and consider it. However, I have found most anti-homosexual sentiments to be based on nothing more than an emotional reaction stemming from one's own cultural baggage or a belief in the churches interpretations of the current religious dogma. So forgive me if I come off as a bit skeptical and/or cynical.

 

[Walter]

Really....come now, you think only those who are badly developed in hormones are capable of being homosexual? It usually happens during a hard period of person's life, not always depending on your genes but rather on the individual's understanding of life where he is cracked too.
And about gay relations in public, homosexuals often try to show it on purpose - In tv shows, parades, etc.

 

[PvtRyan]

Wanna set up a rule here? Ok, each time you're gonna make a claim that's presented as fact but is based on nothing more than your own backwash ideas: don't.

Come with evidence, present studies, or if you don't: STFU.

 

[Walter]

evidence? you mean i gotta find a gay parade on the internet? :bounce:

baad idea, friend. but you've asked for it

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1136146858680329231&q=gay+parade

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6655621774175484471&q=gay+parade

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4784628160972453588&q=gay+parade

 

[CptStern]

what are you retarded? what kind of evidence is that? what does that prove? it's a gay parade ..for GAY PEOPLE! how does a gay parade FOR gay people affect you in any way? dont like it? dont watch ...unless you want to watch......

 

[Walter]

No it's not, it's in public places - on the streets.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You really are very, very stupid, aren't you?

You consistently (and I can only assume deliberately) fail to actually respond to the points people make or the questions they ask, choosing instead to take your own interpretation of what has been clearly written and run with that as if it actually proves something outside of the pitiful confines of your own tiny mind.

Example:

Question: Uh....say what? You're arguing that it's possible for homosexual people to convince others to become homosexual simply by existing in the public eye?

Your response: evidence? you mean i gotta find a gay parade on the internet?

If you're truly this stupid, I pity you. If you're not, then you're deliberately trolling and I'm going to ban you.

 

[CptStern]

No it's not, it's in public places - on the streets.

oh my god! since when do they have parades outdoors on the street? I'm pretty sure this years st patricks day parade will be held in a small apartment somewhere in manhattan


again what are you proving here?

"they're gay and outdoors!!! proof they're in league with satan!!! crucify them crucify THEM!!!"

 

[CptStern]

god no, homosexuals arent that stupid ..no, he's just one those godly folk who think it's morally wrong to be anything but repressed/ignorant/god fearing

 

[Neutrino]

Well, I am certainly interested in considering your point of view on the subject. However, I have some specific questions in regards to the points you brought up. Thus, I have a few questions which I'm sure you will be able to answer considering your assurance about the facts of this discussion. I'd appreciate you addressing these concerns of mine so I may further edify myself on the subject.

Really....come now, you think only those who are badly developed in hormones are capable of being homosexual?

Supposition: Homosexuality is caused by abnormal hormones.

How do you know this?
Did you read it? If so, where?
What hormones, specifically, are we talking about here? Testosterone? Estrogen? Luteinizing hormone?
Are we talking about a lack of a certain hormone or an excess?
What exactly do you mean by, "badly developed" in regards to hormones?

It usually happens during a hard period of person's life, not always depending on your genes but rather on the individual's understanding of life where he is cracked too.

Supposition: The majority of homosexuality is caused by a person's choice to be homosexual, which is caused by mental stress.

What evidence do you base this statement on?
Could you please direct me to the statistical data that supports this?
What psychological journal or textbook did you read this in?
Is this the opinion of the American Psychological Association, the foremost group of experts on the subject? If it is not, how do you justify the contradiction?

And about gay relations in public, homosexuals often try to show it on purpose - In tv shows, parades, etc.

Supposition: Homosexuals advertise homosexuality in public intentionally.
Corollary 1: All such cases of homosexuality appearing in the public eye are orchestrated soley by homosexual people.
Corollary 2: This intentional gay propaganda is part of a general homosexual agenda.

Based on your statement it would seem the general "gay relations" with the public must be run by a coherent group, most likley consisting of homosexual people.
What group or organization is this?
How do they control the content of TV shows?
What do you mean by "etc"? Please be specific.
What motivation do you attribute to this gay orgination for conducting these advertisements?

Thanks for answering. I appreciate it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ooh, I like these threads. Soon enough, this post shall be deleted and replaced with a proper one!

(I get email alerts about the threads I post in, so it will remind me)

 

[AJ Rimmer]

No it's not, it's in public places - on the streets.

What?! Homosexuals out in daylight?! They should keep themselves inside, far away from my heterosexual eyes, less I be confused as to my sexual preference! (or, if my hormones should suddenly change from good ones to bad ones, or I should simply choose to become gay, I get confused about what you claim causes homosexuality)

 

[Darkside55]

Do you also think that you get a free toaster for "turning' homosexual?

Dude, I want a toaster. But I am attracted to women. On the other hand...toast. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Absinthe]

Gays POSE a threat to it, by demoralising it,

HOW?

Amidst all you mindless drivel is not a single rational, evidenced explanation for your prejudiced, ignorant thoughts. If you are not willing to put an effort into this discourse, then please **** off and don't waste our time.

and furthermore forcing everyone to accept different norms in life.

Oh no, god forbid something like tolerance becomes commonplace! *gasp*

Can I just totally skip the well-written argument where I pick this guy apart piece-by-piece and go straight to insulting him and insinuating that he may in fact be a repressed homosexual and/or was molested by a gay uncle as a child? It'd save me a lot of time and forum space.

I second this motion.

 

[Neutrino]

Dude, I want a toaster. But I am attracted to women. On the other hand...toast. Decisions, decisions.

Personally, I'm holding out for a microwave.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Personally, I'm holding out for a microwave.

Come ooon Pasta Maker!

 

[Beerdude26]

Walter, you are clinically retarded. I'm truly sorry, but you are. You ignore EVERY SINGLE POST in this thread but your own. Your quotes show the parts that you actually read.

 

[CptStern]

HOW?

simple ..by demoralising it

I guess the best analogy to explain it is war. Like when soldiers are demoralised and cant keep fighting:

soldier 1: "dear god the gays are rallying again!! it doesnt look good for us men, say your prayers and ask god for a swift death because we stand no chance against the homersexuals and their gay agendas

soldier 2: "well that's it, I'm surrendering, which uniform would be more appropriate when surrendering to the gays? battle or dress uniform?

soldier 3: "no I just cant handle it, I HEAR THEY TURN YOU INTO ONE OF THEM!!! goodbye cruel world <shoots self>





..and so on

 

[kirovman]

Walter, learn how to argue.

You're not convincing anyone with your bigottry and ignorance.

 

[DaMaN]

Walter, please address the below points or gtfo.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2163569&postcount=124
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2163570&postcount=125

 

[brink's]

Gays POSE a threat to it(society), by demoralising it, and furthermore forcing everyone to accept different norms in life.

It usually happens during a hard period of person's life, not always depending on your genes but rather on the individual's understanding of life where he is cracked too.
And about gay relations in public, homosexuals often try to show it on purpose - In tv shows, parades, etc.

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.

"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.

What the hell are you basing these comments on? You can go on disliking gays all you want, but if you're going to act like they are even a mien ute threat to society then you are going to have to back yourself up! Do yourself a favour and verify these wild claims before you make anymore, so people will actually take your statements seriously.

 

[gick]

I think you scared him off guys.

 

[DaMaN]

I think you scared him off guys.

I guess he couldn't address my points, so he gtfo...

 

[Walter]

I'm just tired explaining it. What should i be giving evidence for? homosexuality being against the family codex? Homosexuality being an act of anarchic behaviour?
My explanation here is senseless, because it wouldn't change a damn thing even if i'd care finding the evidence for you. The very nature of a human being is to try masking the ways he is tempted of (mostly evil) as "normal".
A serial killer wouldn't be tolerated in any society, even though, in most cases, he is a person with badly developed hormones and he can't control himself.
Homosexuality is the same case. I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights as some thought i did, i've meant to say that homosexuals, as human beings deserve same rights as everyone. But freedom of instincts SHOULD be limited, otherwise what will happen of us if we build a world of free sexual behaviour like we're trying to right now? Who thinks it's fine as it is should open your eyes wider. Are we human beings or animals?
But you can just forget what i said and move on. I already predict that you'll call me an idiot or a moron, whatever else you'll think of. My claims won't change a thing even if you'd agreed with me.

P.S. Don't think that i don't know about the homosexual cases with animals. But i didn't think you'd be that stupid to post it here. Animals are almost completely driven by instincts. And humans differ from animals for being able to control instincts with their brain.

 

[Qonfused]

Just post posting. You shouldn't have come back to this thread.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm just tired explaining it.

Here's the thing... you never did.

What should i be giving evidence for? homosexuality being against the family codex? Homosexuality being an act of anarchic behaviour?

Uhh... yeah. It would help.

My explanation here is senseless, because it wouldn't change a damn thing even if i'd care finding the evidence for you. The very nature of a human being is to try masking the ways he is tempted of (mostly evil) as "normal".

Saying that you can't be bothered to find the evidence is essentially a concession that your position is of little substance and therefore invalid. Let's be honest here. It's not like you've poured sweat and blood into your posts thus far.

A serial killer wouldn't be tolerated in any society, even though, in most cases, he is a person with badly developed hormones and he can't control himself.
Homosexuality is the same case.

- You have failed to explain how exactly homosexuality is a result of bad hormones.
- You have failed to warrant a comparison to serial killers beyond the superficial.

I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights as some thought i did, i've meant to say that homosexuals, as human beings deserve same rights as everyone.

That is a lie. You advocated the prohibition of gay marriage and child adoption. You even went so far as to say that gays themselves should be banned.

But freedom of instincts SHOULD be limited, otherwise what will happen of us if we build a world of free sexual behaviour like we're trying to right now

Yes, what exactly will happen to us? Educate us fine readers. I'm personally quite curious.

I guess people will be ****ing a lot more. Oh, the horror.

Who thinks it's fine as it is should open your eyes wider. Are we human beings or animals?

Technically, we're animals. But I fail to see what you're getting at. How does accepting homosexuality as normal lead us down the slippery slope to more primitive forms of life?

But you can just forget what i said and move on. I already predict that you'll call me an idiot or a moron, whatever else you'll think of. My claims won't change a thing even if you'd agreed with me.

Your claims won't change a thing because they're absolutely worthless. The very last sentence in your post doesn't even make sense, since if you got us to agree with you, that would be a change.

But alright. You're an idiot. And a moron. And a bunch of other things I can think of.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm just tired explaining it. What should i be giving evidence for? homosexuality being against the family codex? Homosexuality being an act of anarchic behaviour?

What? What exactly is the "family codex" and why should we base every family around it? How the hell is homosexuality "anarchic"?

A serial killer wouldn't be tolerated in any society, even though, in most cases, he is a person with badly developed hormones and he can't control himself.

Can you guess why they're not tolerated?

Here, I'll tell you: IT'S BECAUSE SERIAL KILLERS KILL PEOPLE.

Homosexuality is the same case.

No, actually it's not. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't damage social constructs already in place... All it does is piss off a few people who think it's immoral or gross.

I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights as some thought i did, i've meant to say that homosexuals, as human beings deserve same rights as everyone. But freedom of instincts SHOULD be limited, otherwise what will happen of us if we build a world of free sexual behaviour like we're trying to right now? Who thinks it's fine as it is should open your eyes wider. Are we human beings or animals?
But you can just forget what i said and move on. I already predict that you'll call me an idiot or a moron, whatever else you'll think of. My claims won't change a thing even if you'd agreed with me.

P.S. Don't think that i don't know about the homosexual cases with animals. But i didn't think you'd be that stupid to post it here. Animals are almost completely driven by instincts. And humans differ from animals for being able to control instincts with their brain.

ProTip: Humans are animals. Humans have instincts. Arbitrarily claiming that instincts will destroy civilization is in all honesty a very ignorant and stupid thing to say. Instincts are what keep our species alive. If we didn't have the instinct to have sex, nobody would ever have been born.

Here's how you should do this: Go find a social-structure theory that lays out exactly why homosexuality should be limited, or banned, looked-down upon, or some other such thing. Then, explain the theory to us, outlining how homosexuality affects society in a negative way. All you're doing right now is expecting us to throw our hands up and say "Oh hey, you're right!" because you threw in the words "family" and "anarchy".

 

[AJ Rimmer]

What should i be giving evidence for? homosexuality being against the family codex? Homosexuality being an act of anarchic behaviour?

...Yes.

 

[Walter]

Saying that you can't be bothered to find the evidence is essentially a concession that your position is of little substance and therefore invalid. Let's be honest here. It's not like you've poured sweat and blood into your posts thus far.

yep, i'm saying homosexuality is wrong, and should not be tolerated as normal behaviour, but yet you demand evidence. Let me tell you, either you're gay yourself and make some kind of an accused criminal of yourself, or you're a completely demoralised person. What do you think is right then? letting them adopt children as "parents", or basically propaganding homosexuality to others that are capable of holding it inside them?

- You have failed to explain how exactly homosexuality is a result of bad hormones.

Hormones, or otherwise, i don't actually care where the mistake is ,you fool.
Perhaps if i'd waved my d*ck around and run around naked on the streets saying "look at me, i'm a nudist" that wouldn't be of any harm too. Afterall, it's for nudists only! Everyone else just hide if you don't like it!

That is a lie. You advocated the prohibition of gay marriage and child adoption. You even went so far as to say that gays themselves should be banned.

Yeah, i did say that gay marriage and child adoption for gays should be prohibited. You should have equal rights as a person, be that gay or not.
But you seem to divide a person and gay yourself. So we have "people", and we have "gays" then? Or we have people and people that need help(but still people) ?

I guess people will be ****ing a lot more. Oh, the horror.

Well, i'm sorry there. But i see it's rather pointless to tell it being wrong if you think it's completely fine to have such a sickening for of sexuality.
Oh, and perhaps people might start ****ing on public streets too in some near future, that'd be fine too i guess.

Technically, we're animals. But I fail to see what you're getting at. How does accepting homosexuality as normal lead us down the slippery slope to more primitive forms of life?

Because we let our instincts control us that way, not the head. That's what is primitive about it.


I'm really getting addicted to this forum, it seems. Really amusing to see how people make up fanciful excuses and degrade themselves to something inhumane in an attempt to prove their right.

 

[kirovman]

I think Walter is knghenry.

 

[repiV]

It's funny how he's so afraid of instincts. Shit...every life choice we make is driven by our emotions and instincts. Nobody pursues goals in life that they think are desirable in some kind of objective way, they go after the things that will make them feel good.
I guess we're all just baboons in suits.

 

[Qonfused]

Homosexuality is the same case.

I just saw this so I apologize for the late response.

[referring to Rick Santorum calling gays a "threat to the american family"] "It's prejudice, and it's ignorance, on a level that is staggering at this point in time. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a group of gay bandidos. They travel from village to dell. And as night falls, they travel to that cul-de-sac, where only one house stands. And in the window, you see a family, just setting down to their evening meal. And these queers... these queers... don their black hoods, and matching pumps, very tasteful. Sneak up to the house ever so slightly, open the door, and start... ****ING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS! AND ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY... IS DESTROYED!"
- Lewis Black.

 

[Absinthe]

yep, i'm saying homosexuality is wrong, and should not be tolerated as normal behaviour, but yet you demand evidence. Let me tell you, either you're gay yourself and make some kind of an accused criminal of yourself, or you're a completely demoralised person. What do you think is right then? letting them adopt children as "parents", or basically propaganding homosexuality to others that are capable of holding it inside them?

Yes, you are saying homosexuality is wrong. You are also giving no reasonable rationale as to why. You make vague allusions to shit like "the family codex" and expect everybody else to fill in the gaps, as if your reasoning is so obviously clear.

"Demoralised" people are those that wish to persecute innocent people over non-harmful preferences, and you are one of them. The issue of wether or not gays should be allowed to "propagandize" comes after the issue of the morality of homosexuality. You have not addressed the latter, and so the former is baseless, pointless, and entirely not worth dealing with until you do so.

Hormones, or otherwise, i don't actually care where the mistake is ,you fool.

So you actually don't know what the "mistake" is, but you know it exists, and you hate it.

Congratulations on being an ignorant douche bag. I wish I could delude myself into believing in imaginary, ill-defined problems.

Perhaps if i'd waved my d*ck around and run around naked on the streets saying "look at me, i'm a nudist" that wouldn't be of any harm too. Afterall, it's for nudists only! Everyone else just hide if you don't like it!

Public decency is an entirely different matter from homosexuality.

Stop switching things and address the topic.

Yeah, i did say that gay marriage and child adoption for gays should be prohibited. You should have equal rights as a person, be that gay or not.

So do you support equal rights for gays or not? You can't say "lol equality for all" and then spew some noxious bullshit about gay marriage and adoption (with no basis, I remind you). Quit dancing about and say it clearly. Then, if you wish, coherently explain your choice.

But you seem to divide a person and gay yourself. So we have "people", and we have "gays" then? Or we have people and people that need help(but still people) ?

Point out where I have done so. Please. Pretty please. Come on, asshole. Let's put some meat on those bones of an argument!

Explain why homosexuals need help.

Well, i'm sorry there. But i see it's rather pointless to tell it being wrong if you think it's completely fine to have such a sickening for of sexuality.

Explain how it is sickening. These comments of disgust are not helping you.

Because we let our instincts control us that way, not the head. That's what is primitive about it.

You know what? You're right. YOU ARE SO ****ING RIGHT. Instincts are horrible. It is imperative that we give everybody lobotomies and castration. Babies need to be ripped from their mothers so it's impossible to form a maternal bond. Hell, we should stop hunting and gathering entirely. Sure, we'll all die as joyless, pathetic, withered husks of automatons, but at least we'll have our dignity! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what's important.

Can somebody ban this stupid **** already?