Homosexual families

[CrazyHarij]

you people are wasting your time...

 

[Darkside55]

Actually, don't ban him. I mean that sincerely.

Walter I hope you stick around, man. I hope you post in the politics forum A LOT. Its people like you who make arguing, at least for me, so fun. I'm really quite enjoying watching you dodge questions like a pro while coming up with more unfounded tripe based on ignorance and prejudice, clinging hard to your ideals while denouncing everyone else's. I mean usually fools and obstinance piss me off, but I'm enjoying the hell out of this.

I'd subscribe to your newsletter if you had one.

 

[Absinthe]

It can be entertaining, but it eventually reaches the point where I'd want to talk to a person rather than a wall. If he gave the slightest hint that he had the the ability to comprehend and reply to posts, this wouldn't be so tragically horrible.

 

[DaMaN]

Don't ban Walter, he's so good for target practice! (Never moves, never forms coherent arguments back, etc)

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?

Yup. All of the above plzokthnx.

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?

Firstly, if homosexuals, as human beings, deserve the same rights as everyone else, then they have the same rights to sexual privacy/choice of sexual preferences, marriage, and adoption/childrearing.

Secondly, you appear to be making the argument that homosexuality is an instinct.

According to Wikipedia,

Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined.

So if you are arguing that hommosexuality is an instinct, it is very likely biologically determined. And people cannot be discriminated against based on something that is biologically-determined. (Just like you cannot discriminate based on skin color, eye color, gender, etc.)

Your argument about serial killers is rendered void by the last article of the UDHR, which states that:

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.

Since serial killers are engaging in activities aimed at the destruction of the right of the victim to live, the biological instincts of the serial killer is usually put in check because it is an easier to keep the serial killer from killing than it is to keep the victim from dying.



Back to your original concern about sexual promiscuity, the core questions that you have to address are: "Is homosexuality harming anyone? If so, how? Is it violating anyone's rights? If so, how?"

Because unless you can show that (with some proof for once), your arguments are null and void.

My claims won't change a thing even if you'd agreed with me.

Of course your claims won't change a damn thing, because they are unfounded claims. If you had even a shred of proof to back up your arguments, then they might change things.

 

[Neutrino]

Meh, it's pointless to argue with such a person when they are at such a point in their lives where they are completely closed to new thoughts or logical reasoning.

I do sincerely feel bad for Walter though. It's sad to see a person who was raised to be so closed minded. My advice to you Walter is just once in your life try to look beyond your culture/religion/parents. You are obviously leading a life that is dicating by other people who are telling you, either literally or by action, what to think. I hope at some point you realize that you have the right to think and reason for yourself and take advantage of it. That doesn't mean that you must agree with what people are saying here, but merely that you form your opinions for yourself, because you are doing yourself a severe injustice by allowing others to form your opinions for you.

 

[Aenama]

Walter must be retarded in some way.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

My this is getting interesting

 

[Walter]

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.

Since this is the most important argument i'm being barked at, let me clear it out for you:
I support equal rights for gays. But that means NO SPECIAL RIGHTS. That of course excludes disabled people, but then...gays aren't disabled, right?!

There is no "We the people" and "We the gays" there is only "We the people(which includes gays as the people too)". So either equal yourself with every other citizen by rights or demand a different form of government.
Demanding for gay marriage and especially homosexual parenting isn't a demand for a democratic law, this is a demand for anarchy, and complete removal of family codex.
Let me tell you why i dislike homosexuality. It's because men reject the opposite gender, that goes for women too. You demoralise the society, because it does not know what future it will have like that.

I think you should be banned. You seem to more insult me than demand your petty "evidence", where it should be clear to every man.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

So, "equality for all", apart from for marriage and parenting?

 

[Beerdude26]

I am absolutely not following here. It seems you contradict yourself :|

I support equal rights for gays. But that means NO SPECIAL RIGHTS.

So you feel gays should have the same rights as others. Good!

That of course excludes disabled people, but then...gays aren't disabled, right?!

There is no "We the people" and "We the gays" there is only "We the people(which includes gays as the people too)". So either equal yourself with every other citizen by rights or demand a different form of government.

Logical. If I request a premium treatment upon others just because I feel the colour red is better than any other colour, I am wrong. (A simple analogy)

Demanding for gay marriage and especially homosexual parenting isn't a demand for a democratic law, this is a demand for anarchy, and complete removal of family codex.

I'm losing you here. Two quotes earlier you said that gays should have the same rights as others! And now you're saying that they aren't allowed to be married or become parents! Two rights that other people DO have! Does not compute, my friend

Let me tell you why i dislike homosexuality. It's because men reject the opposite gender, that goes for women too. You demoralise the society, because it does not know what future it will have like that.

This is debatable, and your own opinion. I'll leave the debate to others

You seem to more insult me than demand your petty "evidence", where it should be clear to every man.

Unfortunately, if you enter your opinion in a debate, you WILL have to get evidence. I guess you'll just have to keep your opinion to yourself, because you will always enter a debate (well, a discussion) if you voice your opinion to other people who disagree with you.

 

[Walter]

I disagree that even by having homosexuality in instincts is an excuse for allowing it.Humans can control their instincts with their brain. That is why you don't roar at someone who gets closer to you while you're eating . Now when you have different skin, you can't do much about it.

 

[Beerdude26]

Now when you have different skin, you can't do much about it.

HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA BEST TURN OF EVENTS EVER

EDIT: I hope I'm correct in what he means

 

[Walter]

I'm losing you here. Two quotes earlier you said that gays should have the same rights as others! And now you're saying that they aren't allowed to be married or become parents! Two rights that other people DO have! Does not compute, my friend

So i guess this is the core of this whole struggle? hmm...

Gays(as people) should be allowed to be married, but not to the same gender, even if they prefer their own.

 

[Beerdude26]

So i guess this is the core of this whole struggle? hmm...

Gays(as people) should be allowed to be married, but not to the same gender, even if they prefer their own.

Because they do not procreate?

 

[Walter]

Actually, don't ban him. I mean that sincerely.

Walter I hope you stick around, man. I hope you post in the politics forum A LOT. Its people like you who make arguing, at least for me, so fun. I'm really quite enjoying watching you dodge questions like a pro while coming up with more unfounded tripe based on ignorance and prejudice, clinging hard to your ideals while denouncing everyone else's. I mean usually fools and obstinance piss me off, but I'm enjoying the hell out of this.

I'd subscribe to your newsletter if you had one.

Well...i guess then that's it. These are my ideals, not like all people can agree to them. I just base myself on culture, on family, on traditions, on the power of the will. And homosexuality doesn't fit there more than sadism, zoofilia, masochism and everything else which i hold the freedom of instincts and anarchy.

 

[Beerdude26]

Well...i guess then that's it. These are my ideals, not like all people can agree to them. I just base myself on culture, on family, on traditions, on the power of the will. And homosexuality doesn't fit there more than sadism, zoofilia, masochism.

A quote from myself:

Unfortunately, if you enter your opinion in a debate, you WILL have to get evidence. I guess you'll just have to keep your opinion to yourself, because you will always enter a debate (well, a discussion) if you voice your opinion to other people who disagree with you.

 

[Walter]

Well, when i've saod that Homosexuality is harmful to society, i didn't mean it kills people literally. It demoralises them, like i've said why.

 

[Beerdude26]

Well, when i've saod that Homosexuality is harmful to society, i didn't mean it kills people literally. It demoralises them, like i've said why.

That is your opinion, and you are more than entitled to that. However, it is incredibly important that you don't think it is a fact. You are allowed to think anything, but if you criticize and/or prohibit people from living a certain way openly, you are acting wrongly.

 

[15357]

It demoralises

I did think that once, homosexuality was immoral, but now that I think of it, there is no reason that it is, except that it's not accepted by society's norms, and therefore is not a moral... I think.

 

[Neutrino]

the freedom of instincts and anarchy.

The desire to procreate, to reproduce, with a member of the opposite sex is entirely instinctual.

Think about it.

 

[CptStern]

Well, when i've saod that Homosexuality is harmful to society, i didn't mean it kills people literally. It demoralises them, like i've said why.

so homosexuality is responsible for the "demoralification" of the society? all deviant behaviour can be traced to homosexuality? from bestiality to cheating on your wife to cheating on your taxes to watch porn on tv

you are nothing but a bigot who uses gays as a scapegoat for everything that's wrong with society ..it's most certainly a POV you picked up from church/your parents and has nothing to do with facts, figures or research ..your statements are examples of the classic definition of ignorance:

ig?no?rance (ĭg'nər-əns)
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.


learn to recognise when you're wrong and quit while you have some measure of dignity left (which is non existant at this point)

 

[Absinthe]

I support equal rights for gays...

...Demanding for gay marriage and especially homosexual parenting isn't a demand for a democratic law, this is a demand for anarchy, and complete removal of family codex.

'Nuff said. Thanks for your time. I don't think you even understand yourself.

 

[Stigmata]

Well, when i've saod that Homosexuality is harmful to society, i didn't mean it kills people literally. It demoralises them, like i've said why.

Alright, keep it simple this time: Spend a couple paragraphs explaining ONE reason why homosexuality is harmful. ONE reason.

 

[Absinthe]

But Stigmata, don't you know? It demoralizes people! Every man should know that!

Granted, I'm not exactly sure why. Nor do I really understand the mechanics behind it. But I assure you that it's very real and self-evident. Except for... y'know, having no evidence.

ADDED: Oh wow, just read his post in which he throws homosexuality in the same category with zoophilia and sadism. Did I interpret his comment about "having a different skin" correctly? Did he really manage to throw racism into the mix as well?

 

[Que-Ever]

On the contrary, nothing gets me more invigorated or rearin' to go than some good, hard, sweaty mansex.

(except, perhaps, babies under cars)

 

[Ome_Vince]

If anything it is good for moral => more chics for straight guys. The more gay men the better the ratio is

 

[Beerdude26]

Did I interpret his comment about "having a different skin" correctly? Did he really manage to throw racism into the mix as well?

I think the same

 

[15357]

I disagree that even by having homosexuality in instincts is an excuse for allowing it.Humans can control their instincts with their brain. That is why you don't roar at someone who gets closer to you while you're eating . Now when you have different skin, you can't do much about it.

Sooo, if you have brown/yellow (how the **** it's yellow I have no ****ing idea)/black/pink/purple colored skin, it's as bad as being gay? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Qonfused]

This is getting old. It's more fun with a few people vs. a group.

 

[DaMaN]

This is getting old. It's more fun with a few people vs. a group.

Yea, it get's boring when it's just everybody vrs. one guy making no sense with no proof and no logical backing who won't listen to reason.

---
@ Walter:

For the umpteenth time, would you please, for the love of (your) god and all that is sane and logical, answer this question with some sort of logical, supported, and coherent argument. (I.E. use facts and logical steps to show your answer. Saying that homosexuality "demoralizes" society because you say so isn't going to cut it. If you are using that as your argument you need to back it up with some proof, establish a base set of facts, and explain every logical step you made to get to your conclusion. Imagine you are talking to a five-year-old (like I am right now), explain it as simply but with as much detail as you can, with little, logical steps.)


So again, Walter:

"Is homosexuality harming anyone? If so, show how. Is it violating anyone's rights? If so, show how."

 

[Darkside55]

Let me tell you why i dislike homosexuality. It's because men reject the opposite gender, that goes for women too. You demoralise the society, because it does not know what future it will have like that.

So the core of your argument is this, then? The "demoralization of society?" And you feel that the way it demoralizes society is that people will worry about the future when there are gay people around, correct?

Can you explain this further? Do you mean the future in regards to procreation? The future in regards to having homosexuals open and out in the public? What worries about a "future with gays" are you concerned about? Please elaborate.

I disagree that even by having homosexuality in instincts is an excuse for allowing it.Humans can control their instincts with their brain. That is why you don't roar at someone who gets closer to you while you're eating . Now when you have different skin, you can't do much about it.

I think one of the problems you have is that you keep classifying homosexuality as an "instinct." Connecting those two words seems to give you the idea that homosexuality is akin to any negative and/or primitive instinct we humans might have, and have thusly suppressed in today's society. You have said on multiple occassions that people should not be controlled by their instincts (which is true TO AN EXTENT--an extent which I think you have clearly missed), myself and others have replied that all we do is based off of instinct. So to repress our instincts is to repress ourselves as human beings.

But I'm going to try a different route, rather than regurgitate the same things that've been posted over and over. Let me ask you an honest question, please try to be open about this and view it in the manner of a human being thinking about another human being:

Taking the instinct factor out of it, basically what you have been saying is that homosexuals should not act on their desire to have relations with members of their own sex. You are basically telling a group of people to not be themselves because you do not agree with it. Reasons aside, this is what it boils down to. Do you view that as right?

If someone were to try and stop you from doing an act in which you are harming no one else, and are simply seeking out your own personal happiness, would you consider it ok for them to do that? I am not even speaking in sexual terms here; let's take out all extraneous information and reduce the situation to its basest terms. Do you, Walter, feel that if you were not harming or violating anyone else with your actions, yet a group of people felt that your actions were offensive and you should cease, would you truly do so? Would you find them justified in asking or demanding you do that?

Gays(as people) should be allowed to be married, but not to the same gender, even if they prefer their own.

Again, speaking from the above example, would you find this right? What you're suggesting here is that homosexual people be in heterosexual relationships. Ponder that for a moment. Homosexuals, homo, same, similar, similar sex. Homosexuals in a hetero relationship. So what you are saying is that they have every right to be in a marriage, yet they cannot marry who they want or be happy in said marriage. Do you really find that right?

Well...i guess then that's it. These are my ideals, not like all people can agree to them. I just base myself on culture, on family, on traditions, on the power of the will. And homosexuality doesn't fit there more than sadism, zoofilia, masochism and everything else which i hold the freedom of instincts and anarchy.

You are using an old argument here, friend. Attaching negative connotations of homosexuality to other bad or evil acts such as devil worship and having sex with box turtles. And it doesn't work. I've never heard masochists thrown in there though, that's interesting.

See, you think homosexuals are going to somehow destroy society. Anarchy, the word anarchy, is rebellion against an established order. To overthrow. So you believe that somehow, these people who are grown, consenting adults who only wish to be with other grown, consenting adults of the same gender, will somehow destroy civilization as we know it? And please don't mistake my tone here, I'm not being sarcastic as I type this (although the idea is ludicrous, make no mistake about that either), I'm just trying to wrap my head around your way of thinking. I am curious as to how you've come to this conclusion that homosexuals = anarchy.

You see because I can't understand how one could think that people, who want nothing more than to pursue their own happiness and live their lives in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else or AFFECT anyone else aside from perhaps grossing a few people out is supposed to be such a terrible thing that should be surpressed like the "instincts to roar at other people or murder." And I'm curious as to what your reply will be to the original question I asked, because when you get down to it it's just irrational dislike for something you aren't used to, something you yourself said you reject because of culture.

 

[Walter]

But I'm going to try a different route, rather than regurgitate the same things that've been posted over and over. Let me ask you an honest question, please try to be open about this and view it in the manner of a human being thinking about another human being:

Taking the instinct factor out of it, basically what you have been saying is that homosexuals should not act on their desire to have relations with members of their own sex. You are basically telling a group of people to not be themselves because you do not agree with it. Reasons aside, this is what it boils down to. Do you view that as right?

If we take the instinct factor out of it, then i'm afraid yes. Desires are even easier to surpress than your instincts, i myself know.

If someone were to try and stop you from doing an act in which you are harming no one else, and are simply seeking out your own personal happiness, would you consider it ok for them to do that? I am not even speaking in sexual terms here; let's take out all extraneous information and reduce the situation to its basest terms. Do you, Walter, feel that if you were not harming or violating anyone else with your actions, yet a group of people felt that your actions were offensive and you should cease, would you truly do so? Would you find them justified in asking or demanding you do that?

Well, since most of us here live in democratic countries, i guess we should stick to the power of the people. I myself alone am of no power to say what is wrong or right, but if the majority of your country says "no" to gay marriage or gay parents and has reasons to be against it (even such as respect for family codex) then it's still a "no". That goes for every other thing the people decide.

Again, speaking from the above example, would you find this right? What you're suggesting here is that homosexual people be in heterosexual relationships. Ponder that for a moment. Homosexuals, homo, same, similar, similar sex. Homosexuals in a hetero relationship. So what you are saying is that they have every right to be in a marriage, yet they cannot marry who they want or be happy in said marriage. Do you really find that right?

Well...If you treat it like an illness, then perhaps they do deserve respect.

See, you think homosexuals are going to somehow destroy society. Anarchy, the word anarchy, is rebellion against an established order. To overthrow. So you believe that somehow, these people who are grown, consenting adults who only wish to be with other grown, consenting adults of the same gender, will somehow destroy civilization as we know it? And please don't mistake my tone here, I'm not being sarcastic as I type this (although the idea is ludicrous, make no mistake about that either), I'm just trying to wrap my head around your way of thinking. I am curious as to how you've come to this conclusion that homosexuals = anarchy.

Why, my constitution never allowed gay marriages. So homosexuals are rebelling against it.

You see because I can't understand how one could think that people, who want nothing more than to pursue their own happiness and live their lives in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else or AFFECT anyone else aside from perhaps grossing a few people out is supposed to be such a terrible thing that should be surpressed like the "instincts to roar at other people or murder." And I'm curious as to what your reply will be to the original question I asked, because when you get down to it it's just irrational dislike for something you aren't used to, something you yourself said you reject because of culture.

Let us not forget that opposite sexes weren't created for just no reason. Homosexuality is...well, counter to that. I wouldn't say that it doesn't affect anyone. We may perhaps not ever prove that, but i'm sure many homosexuals that are today willingly became what they are because of outside influence.


So my question is then : Do people become gay because of sexual desire, and not instinct or any other biological influence?

 

[Geogaddi]

Newsflash Walter, desires ae directly influenced by instincts.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, since most of us here live in democratic countries, i guess we should stick to the power of the people. I myself alone am of no power to say what is wrong or right, but if the majority of your country says "no" to gay marriage or gay parents and has reasons to be against it (even such as respect for family codex) then it's still a "no". That goes for every other thing the people decide.

This is not mob rule. This is a constitutional democracy. Homosexuals, by all reason, should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. They should be allowed freedom and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not violate the rights of others (which they don't).

If 65% of your democratic country thought it would be OK to lynch black people, would you accept this? After all, majority rules, right?

Well...If you treat it like an illness, then perhaps they do deserve respect.

But if it's not an illness, they're undeserving of respect? You have to elaborate, Walter. Why should the tolerance of two peoples' non-harmful sexual orientations be contingent on whether or not it's some kind of mental disease?

Let us not forget that opposite sexes weren't created for just no reason. Homosexuality is...well, counter to that. I wouldn't say that it doesn't affect anyone. We may perhaps not ever prove that, but i'm sure many homosexuals that are today willingly became what they are because of outside influence.

The reason behind heterosexual procreational intercourse is irrelevant. It's intended for reproduction, but contraceptive devices and the pill subvert that entire process. They are counter-productive to the natural process of creating new human beings.
But we don't criticize the use of such things because they are "unnatural". Or at least we shouldn't. The natural intent is not a valid argument because western societies are experiencing something we call modernity.

 

[Darkside55]

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are gay because they choose to be and not because of any biological impulse, why is this so contemptable to you? What do you find so heinous about their actions that you want to lock everything about them up in a box and shove it into the proverbial closet? "Get rid of the impulse," etc., but WHY?

Is it only the product of society's views or are they your own? Suppose society decided being gay was OK with them, and homosexual marriages and adoptions were commonplace. Would you still hate it, even if the majority vote was that they should have the same rights as everyone else? And if so, why?

 

[Neutrino]

Well, since most of us here live in democratic countries, i guess we should stick to the power of the people. I myself alone am of no power to say what is wrong or right, but if the majority of your country says "no" to gay marriage or gay parents and has reasons to be against it (even such as respect for family codex) then it's still a "no". That goes for every other thing the people decide.

Absinthe already covered this, but I just want to add my own emphasis on how wrong this is. Truly free countries do not leave civil rights in the hands of the majority rule.

 

[Aenama]

If a guy likes to suck cock,or likes anal sex,Why do you care Walter?
Do like hiding in peoples bead rooms and see what they are doing?
This doesn't affect anybody at all except those who are gay.
Are you gay,and just in denial maybe?

 

[Walter]

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are gay because they choose to be and not because of any biological impulse, why is this so contemptable to you? What do you find so heinous about their actions that you want to lock everything about them up in a box and shove it into the proverbial closet? "Get rid of the impulse," etc., but WHY?

Is it only the product of society's views or are they your own? Suppose society decided being gay was OK with them, and homosexual marriages and adoptions were commonplace. Would you still hate it, even if the majority vote was that they should have the same rights as everyone else? And if so, why?

Well...i'm a Christian. I don't hate homosexuals themselves, i hate homosexuality. And yes, i would dislike it a lot if all people that surround me would go pro-sodomy all of a sudden.
But then again, many nations aren't that much of Christian Societies anymore, that goes especially for Western Europe. Of course, if you're an atheist, you're giving your sexual desires almost a complete freedom. It's basically choosing free sexual preference over God. That is why many, but not all homosexuals abandon faith, though i still know some God fearing ones.

 

[Walter]

If a guy likes to suck cock,or likes anal sex,Why do you care Walter?
Do like hiding in peoples bead rooms and see what they are doing?
This doesn't affect anybody at all except those who are gay.
Are you gay,and just in denial maybe?

the problem is they don't suck their dicks in their bedrooms only anymore. That type of secrecy has waned over the centuries.

 

[CptStern]

omg you cant possibly be that deluded ...how old are you? please tell me this is just a big joke ..if not, you're about as brainwashed as they come


pffft choosing atheism because we want sexual freedom ..thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard ..how about not having faith because it's just a bunch of stupid stories devoid of of any facts meant to scare little children into flying straight ..what lies have they been spoonfeeding you? did you go to Jesus Camp? you must have cuz it's just not believeable in this day and age ...


/me hyperventilates

the problem is they don't suck their dicks in their bedrooms only anymore. That type of secrecy has waned over the centuries.

is this a problem for you? everywhere you go men are sucking off other men? cant go for a loaf of bread without seeing gays playing swallow the salami everywhere you look? are you sure you dont live in a gay porn film set or something? cuz in my more than 30 years I've never seen gay dick suckers in public ...where the hell do you live?