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

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Spider149

[I]Well, apart from the fact that a child growing up close to homosexual parents may have greater homosexual tendencies than other children, there's nothing wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Floorwax

Maybe. I don't think sexual orientation is something that can be influenced by everyday life experiences, though I wouldn't know for sure.

And your italics problem: is your text within your quote?

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.

[tusse]

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.

[-DarthMaul-]

Originally Posted by Floorwax

What possible evidence could point to two moms/two dads being a thoroughly negative thing?

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

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by -DarthMaul-

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

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

Get what I mean?

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

[Sedistix]

Children learn from observational experience. They learn by example, a great many things, and the idea of betty or sue, or tom, or jerry or any other ’kid’ under age walking in on their same sex parents, fucking, is likely to lead too curiosity or tendencies, or at the very least acceptance and tolerance.

Is that a good thing… ? Depends on who you ask…

This issue is like so many others, completely subjective too personal interpretation.


It goes to show as much as the world changes, it really doesn’t.

[Safe-Keeper]

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

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

I never said I hated a gay person, just their acts I find sick.

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

You can twist it anyway you want but in the end it is NOT normal.

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

Read, please.

"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".

Read this, too.

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

Again, get your English straight.

Comparing manlove to hair color is really reaching, pity.

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.

Yes, its a brain disorder for a man to love another man

Good job restating your point instead of addressing replies.

There is nothing unatural about sex for pleasure between a MALE AND A FEMALE

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

Right, another reacher comparing food to manlove. This is getting good.

"Reaching"?

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

That's the point of my analogy, and it stands.

You can call me all the names that you can come up with (...)

Thank you, but I think "bigot" does it.

Fact will always remain two men or two women can't make a baby. Can't twist that.
So with that said two men or two woman "loving eachother" is not normal.

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.

It may be considered normal to the young kids growing up in the twisted world we live in today but they are far from reality.

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".

Again, I am not against manlove just how they want to lable what we normal people call marriage.

but you read right past that every post (...)

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

(...) and try to change my views. I am not trying to change yours on that, now.

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.

Every straight male knows deep inside that manlove is nasty.

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.

The pleasure is what makes us have more sex. More sex=more people. It is evolution, and natural.

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

That's not true at all. Most animals practise sex for pleasure as well, and many animals masturbate.

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

Marrage is something special shared between man and woman.

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

And western civilization has embraced that for many years. Why would gay people want to change that? Its a straight custom.

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

I don't want to change any of their customs.

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

Marriage is a RELIGOUS practice

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.

Can you imagine how angry you would get if you created a pagan or atheist holiday and called it Christmas or Easter or some other religous name?

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.

Adam and eve not adam and steve.

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

As opposed to...what? Teaching hatred and intolerance? Let’s let our children grow up to be close-minded and apathetic.

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

Almost every species of fauna on the planet has occasionally been spawned with an extra limb.

That means being born with an extra limb is normal!

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.

So basically, your entire argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. Trying to say that gay marriage is exactly like interracial marriage.

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.

And we should ignore practicality "in the name of love".

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.

Yes, this attitude is responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions, of people - when the Red Cross refused to screen gays from blood donations (Before they developed means of accurately screening blood for aids).

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

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

Post Hoc fallacy.

Children learn from observational experience. They learn by example, a great many things, and the idea of betty or sue, or tom, or jerry or any other ’kid’ under age walking in on their same sex parents, fucking, is likely to lead too curiosity or tendencies, or at the very least acceptance and tolerance.

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?

[homo sine domino]

Originally Posted by Sedistix

Children learn from observational experience. They learn by example, a great many things, and the idea of betty or sue, or tom, or jerry or any other ’kid’ under age walking in on their same sex parents, fucking, is likely to lead too curiosity or tendencies, or at the very least acceptance and tolerance.

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? :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.

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.

[Fire Legion]

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.

[Sedistix]

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

No one in this damn world becomes gay by observing.

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.

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

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

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.

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

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

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.

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

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.

lol

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.