Textbook censorship. Hooray, hooray.

[burner69]

I like how I answer back all of your problems with homosexuality. Then you highlight one bit of mine and take the p*ss out of it claiming I have not made an effort.

If you cannot tell me why homosexuality is 'not natural' or 'bad' or 'immoral' then please don't bother posting anti-gay threads. If, however, you can, you're welcome to debate with me.

 

[burner69]

Oh and there is no research that I know that says homosexuality helps or hinders society. Although studies have been carried out. www.google.com
The reason you must come up with evidence that gays are bad is because you are throwing accusations.
I can't come up to you and say: "Deers are bad for society - prove me wrong." cuz it's illogical BS.
You, sir, are a racist as it stands. I would like you to try and accept others views (about gays, not MY view on gays). If you cannot understand that many millions of people find people of the same sex attractive, and it causes no harm, then you have a very closed mind indeed.
Go live in the dark ages.
This is modern society.

 

[hasan]

I like how I answer back all of your problems with homosexuality. Then you highlight one bit of mine and take the p*ss out of it claiming I have not made an effort.

I like how I posted several paragraphs, and how you wrote short lines, which are basically just talking points, which I already answered, then you claim that I am the one who is speaking nonsense.

Back in march 2003, I was in a forum about a half-life mod, they had an offtopic forum, and everyone was in support of the war.
When I replied back and tried to tell them that Americans are bombing civillians, they all accused me of the same thing you are accusing me now: I am stupid! and their answer was only "try to say something intellegent!".

I like how I reply to something, and isntead of replying to my reply, you restate the same thing I replied to.

 

[burner69]

You still haven't given any reasons WHY gays shouldn't be allowed to get on with it.
You've said it's immoral. WHY?

Just because you were right in one forum - I'm guessing the issue was about the war in Iraq, and I'm very much against the way America has handled itself. I was in the debate about that that got us the politics forum.

This is not about being right or wrong in other forums, this is about being right here.

I have explained many times why you cannoy justify stopping gays from marrying. You have just said it's immoral.
I've said it's moral BECAUSE: It dosen't harm anyone apart from homophobics, why else would someone fear/ have an otherwise nasty reaction to a homosexual?
It is natural, occurs in the animal kingdom.
It is natural, they DO it for Christ's sake, with all the stick they get for it off people like you don't you think they must feel really strongly about it to want to carry on.
They enjoy it. They do, or they wouldn't do it.
It harms no one.

Now please answer this question:
WHY SHOULD GAYS NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?

Give reasons, ^^ like I have, and I might accept your opinion as half valid. Until then, you do not have an argument, and I would point out to you that you beliefs contridict basic reasoning.

 

[MadHatter]

Hmmmm, another heated debate. I think Half-Life 2 needs to hurry up and be released.

 

[hasan]

I'm not saying I'm always right -- no one is.
I'm just saying you're pretty much giving me the same attitude.

I have explained many times why you cannoy justify stopping gays from marrying. You have just said it's immoral.

I said it harms society, I also explained for you that "gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things like alcohol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example."
/quoting myself

It is natural, occurs in the animal kingdom.

I'll have to look more into that, but some animals eat thier babies, does that make it natural, and thus aceptable?
Not everythings animals do is natural ..
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

I requested an evidence for this gay gene, where is it?

 

[burner69]

Hmmmm, another heated debate. I think Half-Life 2 needs to hurry up and be released.

lol true.
Marxist View on games! (That I just invented). Games like half life 2 are used by the repressing classes to get gamers off forums discussing important issues that may eventually lead to some action being taken.
They all probably smoke cannabis anyway, bloody criminals

 

[burner69]

Perhaps in this case, although I may not be totally right, I'm fighting on the side that has the most logical and moral sense to it.

Again you haven't answered my question.
WHAT HARM DOES IT DO TO SOCIETY?

Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism. It's like comparing hugging somebody to shooting somebody.

Eating babies breaks moral and logical law. Gayness does not.

That web site also fails to realise that eating babies harms creatures, and therefore should not be replicated in our society, Gay people do not harm others. And if they do, it's nothing to do with their homosexuality.

Animals have sex with animals of the same sex.
And... ur... gay people exist. Are you saying that human behaviour is not natural? And even if it isn't 'natural' in your sense of the word, it still does no harm to anybody.
Tell me how it harms society as you claim. Please, do.

 

[burner69]

What harm? Go on, search google until you come up with ANY piece of crap that says gays are bad. I'm guessing it either comes from befire the 1970s or is from Nazi based belief systems.
If you can't open your eyes and see that gays do no harm to anyone, or society, there's no point in arguing with you.
However I shall continue to argue if you persist, as you have yet to give a logical reason why, and also I could make $150.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

hasan, give up.

It doesn't matter if there's a gay gene, or being gay is a choice.
It doesn't matter if animals do it, or if they don't and it's all somehow an illusion.
It doesn't matter because you have consistently failed to provide a single example of how a gay harms anyone just by existing.

"Well, lots of different things are bad, so gays therefore are too." is not a sensible argument.
Saying "gays are like drugs" and just leaving it at that is not a sensible argument.

Explain to me, one example of how a gay directly or indirectly harms anything just by existing.

Just one!

You can do that, right?

Here is an example of a crappy argument:

"gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things like alcohol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example."

So are you saying that homosexuality is intoxicating? Does it cause liver damage? Is it a depressant? Does it harm brain cells? Does it trigger abuse? Does it affect your ability to drive?

You can't just explain that something is harmful without knowing why.

You're saying:

Gay + X = Chaos

It's not a sensible argument unless you know what "X" is.

 

[burner69]

In a mirrored argument going on in general topic - gay marriage. One guy who is opposing gays has admitted openly that the reason he can't justify his opinion is because there is no logic to it. He still believes it valid.
Take a look, and hang your heads in sorrow.

The anti-gay argument has no logic behind it.

 

[hasan]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.
Ofcourse these are only single criterions, one cannot only use one of them to measure the health of the society, but I'm just trying to give examples here.
Do we agree on that? because if we don't there is no point in continuing.

P.S. it's late right now (1:30 AM) so I might fo off and continue tomorrow.

 

[MadHatter]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.

Who said it was related to a gene?

And yeah, it's getting late here to, I might add something to this another time. Damn, that's this debate, the drug debate, the nazi debate... I have quite a big of work to do.

 

[Neutrino]

It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.

That has got to be the single most ironic statement I have ever heard.

You do not have one single shred of evidence to back up your opinion. Oh and comparing it with alcohol does not work. There is direct evidence that alcohol harms people. It has nothing in common with gays. Try again.

 

[falconwind]

The concept of marriage and being gay existed far before any religion was invented. And I do say INVENTED.

 

[qckbeam]

That is an infuriating article...just reading it gets me extremly pissed off...

 

[falconwind]

Oh, almost forgot.

Censorship is bad.

First it's censorship, then it's revisionist history. Next thing you know Native Indians simply disappeared, the US won the Korean War, and Iraq was loaded with WMDs.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

same, and sweet avatar... ugh still disgusted.... really disgusted..

 

[MadHatter]

Oh, almost forgot.

Censorship is bad.

First it's censorship, then it's revisionist history. Next thing you know Native Indians simply disappeared, the US won the Korean War, and Iraq was loaded with WMDs.

Didn't we lose WW II? Oh yeah, and the moon landing was a frabrication of Hollywood. Also, Bush is a democrat. Can't believe you guys don't know these things. Hmph, should be ashamed.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

[See above.]

Apparently you missed my example of a crappy argument, hasan, because you just repeated the exact same crappy argument.

You are comparing gays to alcoholics and drug addicts?
You have failed to provide one single explanation of how they would harm someone like an addict harms his family.

You are comparing gays to pedophiles?
You have failed to provide one single explanation of how they would harm someone like a pedophile harms children.

You are comparing gays to bestialists?
You have failed to provide an example of how they would harm someone like a bestialist harms an animal.

Problem with all those arguments:
Addicts have impaired senses and are prone to harmful criminal behaviour.
Pedophiles and bestialists harm things that can't deny consent.

Gays do neither of those things.
Argument: Busted.

So no, you won't get 150$.
I will, however, seriously give the money to anyone that I am unable to fully refute on this topic.
Sadly, no such person exists.

I consider it to be like a prize for the guy who captures bigfoot.

 

[OCybrManO]

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.

That's almost Reaganesque in that it is very long and yet says nothing that wasn't already known. It's just a bunch of mostly unrelated ramblings that never get back to the subject of how gays are bad for society. Don't tell us how long it takes for the bad effects of gayness to be seen and leave it at that. TELL US WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE. Seriously, quit avoiding the question and spit it out already. Just come out (pun intended) and clearly say something like "Gays are bad because they cause cancer in anyone standing within 7 feet of them and their gay breath destroys the ozone layer"... but make sure yours are factual... and, please, try to keep it under 100 words.

 

[Neutrino]

I will, however, seriously will give the money to anyone that I am unable to fully refute on this topic.
Sadly, no such person exists. I consider it to be like a prize for the guy who captures bigfoot.

This may sound really strange, but in some ways I'm tempted to give it a try; to make the best argument I could against gays and gay marriage. I always found it to be a very informative practice in philosophical debates.

It can be quite helpful in understanding the opposition's point of view and also allow one to better be able to refute it. Also, I have never seen anyone truly try to do it. I don't mean to sound arrogant at all here, but I've never seen someone here actually try to make a well thoughout and logical argument against it, so I would be somewhat curious as to what I could come up with.

Hmm, something for me to think about I guess.

 

[burner69]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.
Ofcourse these are only single criterions, one cannot only use one of them to measure the health of the society, but I'm just trying to give examples here.
Do we agree on that? because if we don't there is no point in continuing.

P.S. it's late right now (1:30 AM) so I might fo off and continue tomorrow.

I was going to answer back to that but it's been done very well ^^above^^

But yeah all your arguments are flawed in the one fact that they're b*llocks. You keep saying "gays are bad because they're like alcohol." "gays are bad because they're like starving children". Okay, I will argue back with you on these points. As you have chosen to argue with us.
I dare you to knock me for using these arguments, as this has been your style all night.
"Gays are good because they're like happy things."
"Gays are good because they're like half life 2"
"Gays are good because they are like a good Tv show."
"Gays are good because they are like a good book."
"Gays are good because they are like a good night out with your mates."
"Gays are good because they are like having sex."
"Gays are good because they are like birthday parties."

Stop asking for the gay gene. We never did. We just said it was natural because... er.... it happens in nature and is not harmful to animals. Don't even try and pull "eating babies" argument because a) that is negative and b) that usually done to help the other offspring survive, either due to food shortage or threat from prey.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This may sound really strange, but in some ways I'm tempted to give it a try; to make the best argument I could against gays and gay marriage. I always found it to be a very informative practice in philosophical debates.

Sure, give it a shot. All the most sensible arguments I've gotten so far have come from pro-gay people who are just messing around.

In fact, all but one of them were.

It can be quite helpful in understanding the opposition's point of view and also allow one to better be able to refute it. Also, I have never seen anyone truly try to do it. I don't mean to sound arrogant at all here, but I've never seen someone here actually try to make a well thoughout and logical argument against it, so I would be somewhat curious as to what I could come up with.

Hmm, something for me to think about I guess.

That's why it's like bigfoot.
Lots of people claim that such an argument exists, but have no evidence.*
And it is entirely possible, although extremely unilkely, that such an argument exists.
However, there is absolutely no indication that anyone will ever find that argument and put it on display. In fact, it's most likely that the argument does not exist at all.

*(There's actually infinitely more logic and evidence behind bigfoot existing than there is behind banning gay marriage. Seriously: video footage, eyewitness accounts, physical tracks. Gay marriage's got nothing on that. )

 

[burner69]

I'll bet $150 hasan never answers the bloody question. Why hasan, why?

 

[Neutrino]

However, there is absolutely no indication that anyone will ever find that argument and put it on display. In fact, it's most likely that the argument does not exist at all.

Oh, I would definitely tend to agree as you well know. But it might be an interesting thought experiment. Plus it might be interesting to make a thread where we argue the issue both ways just to examine all aspects of it. It would certainly be different to say the least.

 

[burner69]

I think one person would have to resort to some odd ways of debating *gazed up a little* to even attempt that.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'll bet $150 hasan never answers the bloody question. Why hasan, why?

Because my question is just like alcohol!
Over time, exposure to my question erodes the family.
It is a drunk who keeps drinking bottle after bottle until he punches his wife in the face, like an unfounded metaphor in place of a rational argument.

Therefore, we should ban questions. And alcohol?

Oh, I would definitely tend to agree as you well know. But it might be an interesting thought experiment. Plus it might be interesting to make a thread where we argue the issue both ways just to examine all aspects of it. It would certainly be different to say the least.

I know what you mean, I've tried to win the prize myself too. I think I deserve it.

However, it would require more logical holes and "what ifs" than I'm willing to tolerate.

For example, if the world were destroyed there were only four people on earth and they were too gays and two lesbians, then gay marriage should be banned in order to save humanity!

...but then they could marry anyways and just have consensual extramarital affairs.

Damn you logic! I want the cash!

 

[Neutrino]

I think one person would have to resort to some odd ways of debating *gazed up a little* to even attempt that.

I'm pretty sure I could debate the issue far better than Hasan has.

 

[burner69]

Would not be hard. lol.
Ooo and mechagodzilla, where were u for the cannabis debate? If ur a logic man u wudda luved that. Neutrino was in that one. It was good/funny

 

[MadHatter]

I'm pretty sure I could debate the issue far better than Hasan has.

Yeah, same here. I could do a lot better than the, "Gay is like alcohol", or, "Gay is a curse on humanity", or, "Gay is bad and it hampers mankind's surviva", or, "Gay is...." You know, the usuals.

But then again, I couldn't really do that because my beliefs and opinions regarding homosexuals are rock solid.

 

[MadHatter]

Would not be hard. lol.
Ooo and mechagodzilla, where were u for the cannabis debate? If ur a logic man u wudda luved that. Neutrino was in that one. It was good/funny

Don't listen to him, Mech! He's an evil cannabis lover and he'll give you weed that'll turn you into a lizard who loves to chase Mexican men. j/k

 

[Kangy]

The Homosexual Gene:

Read it and weep.

 

[burner69]

Hasan will be very pleased.

Thank you :imu: <-- dont know what that is but it's saying cheers in its own way

 

[burner69]

Don't listen to him, Mech! He's an evil cannabis lover and he'll give you weed that'll turn you into a lizard who loves to chase Mexican men. j/k

lol :smoking: :bonce: <-- after a j

 

[Neutrino]

Hasan will be very pleased.

Thank you :imu: <-- dont know what that is but it's saying cheers in its own way

Oh, just to be clear I think Hasan was referring to me with the gene thing. I brought it up in a couple threads. Here's the articles that I used before:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533

There are also many more studied I've read about that indicate a genetic link to homosexuality. This is not just some I or others came up with. There is an ever increasing amount of evidence to support it.

Edit: Hmm...I may just have to go digging around a bit here on this subject. Since Hasan asked about the genetic issue I wouldn't want to disapoint him or anything.

 

[diluted]

It's Texas. Is anyone really that surprised?

 

[hasan]

I like how you waste two pages of bashing me .. when I'm not around.

some people need to learn how to read. When I use alcohol as an example .. I'm using it as an example. not as a direct comparison.
When I tell you about indirect harm, don't talk to me about direct harm.
you need to look beyond the obvious.

If my posts disgust you, feel free to press ctrl-w or backspace or any other button for that matter. no one is forcing you to read.

If you can't see it, I'm trying to walk you through step by step, so be patient.
why step by step? because we don't even agree on the basics, there is no common grounds, so I have to start from the basics, to establish some sort of common grounds. so that when I say something, you understand where I'm coming from, instead of relating me to Nazis.

anyway, before we talk about gays or anything .. ther are a couple of points to make:
First of all, there are things which destroy society, and things which strengthen society.
Secondly, the purpose of laws and legislations is to protect the society and protect the individuals. when the law punishes crminals, the purpose is not punishment for few people, but it's the protection of the whole society.
There are things called morals, and something thing called conscience, thigns that .. pretty much determine what is right and what is wrong.
for example, anything that harms other people is considered bad. but why is it that way? why is it bad? because your freedom ends where my freedom begins? well, why should it be that way?
Personally, if somebody asks me that question I wouldn't know how to answer, because he apparently doesn't care about others, he simply doesn't recognize right and wrong. that's why he is complaining.

anyway, morals are means of preserving the health of the individuals and the society. curroption in morals results eventually in the curroption of society. ofcourse, it varies depending on the level of the corruption and the scale of its spread.

and you have to notice that moral curroption doesn't necessarily have a direct harm on any single person. that's a different issue.
Yes, things like drugs do have direct effects on specific individuals, such as the person taking them, but this is a diffetent issue.
adultery is such a moral corruption, that might not have a direct effect on anyone, but has a negative effect on society. how? it causes a breakdown of the family, which causes psychological problems for children. These children are the next generation. when this is wide spread across the society, ofcourse it reults in destroying it.
now ofcourse, adultery IS widespread in the west, and it's one of the causes for so many social problems, like children who are born not knowing who their father is, and thier mom probably can't take care of them because she has to work al day, so she rings a baby sitter. you have people who hate their families.
and these are not rare cases, of course I need to research more on this subject.

more to come ....

flame away .. I must be the worst nazi in your eyes by now :cheese:

when I say more to come ... I'm not runnign away, I'm just trying to take some more time to organize my thoughts.


btw .. READ THIS http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=50080&cat=World and quote where is the evidence for gay gene? becuase I couldn't find it.

 

[Kangy]

During the course of the study, Dr Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua, the lead author of the study, and his team questioned 4600 people including gays and straight people. They found that on an average mothers and relatives of gay men had more kids than relatives of straight men.

The researchers, who have presented their study in the 'Royal Society Journals' are now saying that these factors should be partly bound to the X chromosome, because male homosexuality, associated with increased female fecundity was found only in maternal line and not in paternal line of homosexuals. They also noticed that it was usually the younger sibling who was gay.

"We have finally solved this paradox. The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females," the report quoted Dr Andrea Camperio-Ciani as saying.

This is what the "gay" gene does. It doesn't "prove" it's existance by going through the body of a homosexual, but it simply seeks to explain what it would do.

 

[Tr0n]

Wow...while there at it why don't they ban everything george bush says.Hell...don't forget to ban darwinism and space science...

I really do think something bad is gonna happen to this country within the next 10-20 years if this type of stuff keeps up. *cough*civil war?*cough*