Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I highly doubt it. Got any sources, Spider149?

Although the children would most likely show tolerance for gays and their fear of coming out (IF their gay) would be low to very low.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Guess I'd rather be a carefully planned child of two people of the same sex than an accidental child of a man and a woman. Homosexuals at least doesnt get children out of sheer ignorance.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I know of a girl that is starting to get Lesbian tendencies because she now lives with two moms...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

"And I know a girl that is starting to get lesbian tendencies because she has always had a mom and a dad." :rolleyes:

Get what I mean?

No one ever claimed that people with gay parents would not become gay.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What. A. Thread. Fallacies, recycled bigotry, and a refusal to read others' posts before replying - all in one read.


That's like saying you don't hate Africans, just the colour of their skin.

OK, I'm tired of this. Time to define "normal":


"Normal" does not equal to "acceptable". It means "common". Just like
"Abnormal" does not equal to "inacceptable" or "wrong". Get your words right.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's define "natural".


"Natural" does not equal to "acceptable". It means "occuring in nature".

Again, get your English straight.

Every point of my analogy holds. And stands:

• You can't help your hair colour, nor your sexual preference.
• Neither should have any bearing on your rights.

Good job restating your point instead of addressing replies.

Your definition of "unnatural" seems to be "undertaken by only humans" By that definition, yes, sex for pleasure is unnatural.

"Reaching"?

Both hot dogs and homosexuals are considered gross by certain people.

That's the point of my analogy, and it stands.Thank you, but I think "bigot" does it.

I assume you mean right, what with the definition of "normal" being what it is (see above). No matter, it's still nonsense. There's more to living than making more people. We've got 6 billions already and many, many, many awaiting adoption. There's no need for more people.

Strawman fallacy: No one here's saying homosexuality is right because we "grew up in a twisted world".

And I assume the word you're looking for is "right", not "normal".

No, you did, or you would've found my reply shooting it the Hell down.

Then what are you doing here? Just letting the people whose suicide is the #1 cause of death know how much you hate them? How nice of you.
Source, please.

And as stated (who's skipping posts here?), just that something's gross (I assume that's the word you mean) doesn't mean it's wrong.

Yup. Not by the anti-gay definition "something undertaken commonly in nature", but yup.

I've only heard of dolphins and humans having sex for pleasure. Source?

OK, so it's the way we do it now, so obviously it's right? Wow, how perfect we are.

What did I write about appeals to tradition, culture and common belief? Hm?

Probably because you don't need to. The Christians back in the old days did it for you by disallowing homosexuals from marrying.

That'd be why so many atheists marry.

Oh, and if it is a religious practice, I feel urged to invoke my birth-right freedom of religion, which allows me to practice my particular branch of mythology any way I want, no matter what your Holy Bible tells you.

As an atheist, I have zero clue, but I'll get some scholar of history to tell me how my ancestors felt when the Christians hijacked their solstice celebration on December the 25th. Or for that matter, how angry the homosexuals were when some bigotted Christian decided it was suddenly for straight people only.

I'll get back to you.

Oh, so we have to do it like Adam and Eve now? No inter-racial marriages, then, eh?

As opposed to not teaching it at all and letting the kids grow up to become homophobes and/or gay-bashers.

I believe the word you're looking for is "natural". And yes, genetic mutations are perfectly natural. Ask any biologist.

As for whether or not that makes it desireable to be born with an extra limb, no, it doesn't. Just that something occurs in nature does not by definition mean it should be pursued. Heck, rape occurs in nature. Should we pursue that? Likewise, as a side note, I didn't get the computer I'm typing this on from a tree in the woods. It's a most unnatural gizzmo. Yet I don't see you trying to ban it.

There's that strawman again. At least it keeps off the ravens.

I never said it was "exactly like" inter-racial marriage. I said it's been prosecuted the same way, for the same intolerant and tradionalistic reasons. And that point stands.

I'm not utilitarian enough to ban gay marriage just because of some person's problems with it being less "practical".

As a side note, however, I don't find it very practical to bring more kids into play either, nor do I find it practical to ban gay adoption when hundreds of thousands of kids in the USA alone await parents, when gays have been proven to be just as good parents as any, and when it's been disproven by observation that "kids of gay parents are tortured on the playground".

I guess I'm just not very up-to-date on what's practical these days. Silly me.

That's like saying it's taken 3000 lives to let Muslims fly airplanes.

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/post_hoc.jpg
Post Hoc fallacy.

Good reasoning. Sadly for you, it flies completely in the face of scientific research.

Children of homosexuals are not more likely to become homoseuxals themselves.

Oh, and to "certain people": Strange, that, when homosexuality is such a choice, hm?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No one in this damn world becomes gay by observing.

Otherwise please explain how people develop sexual fetishes, as those people will likely not have observed their parents...


Kinda contradicts with the "it's not normal!" argument, doesn't it? As reproductive behavior is in the human dna. Still, a very funny argument, now that I think more deeply about it.

So all the "normal" people observe their parents, so they learn how to have sex? :naughty: :lol: Very funny thought. The world is full of Peeping Toms!! :lol:


Anyway, I find this rather hilarious. On one hand, people are against gay marriages as they cannot give birth to children (unless lesbians), but on the other hand people deny gays to adopt children. :uhm:

Gays are denied marriage, because the possibility of becoming pregnant is inexistent? Well, a man and a woman can and will most likely use a condom to eliminate that possibility. I fail to see a difference.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Here's where I stand on this highly controversial issue:

Religious aspect- God's laws may make references saying that homosexuality is wrong. But,he also said that love was more important than anything in the world. Surely, if two men/women love each other, that is just as true a love as any other? Surely thus, isn't a joing between a gay couple just as valid as the joining of a straight couple, and should have all the same rights, and go by the same name.

Normality- Just because something isn't mainstream, or is unconvential, doesn't make it wrong. If someone is different to you, it doesn't make him/her worse than you in any way, and they should have the same oppertunities and rights.

Practicality- Firstly, children growing up with gay parents are not more likely to be gay themselves. Homosexuality is not a disease. That is a myth. Now onto disease. Yes, it is an issue, and a sensitive one, but would you cease all homosexual activity? Would you prevent gay sex? AIDs would not stop, and liberty would be in tatters. Homosexuality barely harms the world at all.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

You know this how, personal experience or just observation?
Take note that I said it could or is likely, not that it will. I also said that it would probably lead to acceptance and tolerance of the act, not participation. A child who grows up with gay parents will more then likely tolerate such a relationship much more then a child who grew up with a heterosexual parent.
Most fetishes develop out of taboo. Forbidden pleasures so to speak, and other times they can be as harmless as tiny feet, and yes nearly all sexual fetishes are learned characteristics.
I’ve never stated homosexuality isn’t natural or normal, perhaps this is just you being quick to judge and generalize. Besides, normal is subjective to user interpretation. In all truth, what is normal, when the world is so diverse. Perhaps you , and others, are confusing traditional, with normality.
I personally don’t like homosexuals any more or any less then any other person. Heterosexual activities doesnt always equate to intolerance of homosexual behaviour. It's none of my business what other people do in there own bedroom. The only thing I know for certain, is what’s best for me.

Perhaps you missed my statement where I said I was for homosexual marriage, my reasoning just isn’t as popular or common as others.

lol

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Notice, WhiteShark, that I said may. Do you have any definitive evidence that it is not the case?

And Fire Legion is right, it doesn't do the world much harm, except hog the news once in a while.