Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
Natural and moral are two separate issues. Which one are we arguing about?
Click to expand...
We are arguing the whole of your position, that it was a "good" point that it should be banned because it is "unnatural", you said you would begin with this point as the central theme of your argument.

So, now that we find that it isn't "immoral" because it is unnatural do you want to move on to another "point" and continue the conversation? Or do you think that your total failure to connect "unnatural" to "should be banned therefore" is somehow something worth continuing?
 
bravo said:
to be in a consentual adult loving relationship ???

And who do you believe is preventing him or her from being in a consensual adult loving relationship?

No one....Thats absolutely right....

Thousands of homosexuals as of this very minute are in loving consensual adult relationships and NO ONE is trying to stop them at all....so YOUR
your equivocations are based on ignorance and mis-characterization of the facts.....
Click to expand...

Actually, this is an argument in favor of gay marriage. Not allowing gay marriage does not change the fact that there are homosexuals in long term loving relationships. If you claim it is immoral, the immoral lifestyles still exist.

The only thing that will change is that equality will finally exist.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You're arguing semantics. The point is they are not legally allowed to certify themselves as a couple as straight people are.
Click to expand...

Not at all...now its you changing the argument to another topic....the fact is a loving adult relationship needs no sanction by government....

WinterBorn said:
And yet, one group can receive benefits from the gov't, and one cannot.
Click to expand...

Benefits?...This has nothing to do with interfering with an loving adult relationship...as was the premise of the discussion...

Yurt said:
and if you're not married you have restricted inheritance rights, hospital rights, dissolution rights etc....
Click to expand...

Any agreement (contract) can be signed by two adults as to inheritance, hospital decisions, dissolution rights, etc....so your stated "problem" doesn't exist in reality...

DonQuixote said:
it is not that such relationships exist, but that they do not have the benefits of recognition by the law
Click to expand...

Love doesn't need a recognition by the law, church, or government

Socrtease said:
Marriage, for many, is the ultimate form of recognition of that relationship. You are being purposely obtuse and think that no one will get it. Same sex couples don't have all the same rights as their breeder counterparts, One of the primary rights they are not allowed is the right to inherit by intestate succession. If a man and woman are married for 50 years and one of them dies without a will the law still works in the favor of the surviving spouse. Not true for homosexuals in any state that does not recognize same sex marriages or civil unions. There is also the right to continue raising your children. In every state in the US it is assumed that children of the marriage belong to both parties, but with a same sex couple the one that is not the parent gets screwed and so does her child. You want to hide your bigotry in your statement that " NO ONE is trying to stop them at all" when that is absolutely false. People are trying to stop them and work on a daily basis to try to figure out how to turn back the advances they have already made. Pretend all you want, but most of us are not fooled.


Answered above...contracts can be agreed to by anyone....and even better, they can customize it to their particular needs and desires...
In reality, what homos want, is for others to accept and legitimize their brand of sex...for others to accept it in spite of the others religious or moral values....to them, the believers say FU....mind your own business and keep it in the bedroom where it belongs.....
and a small minority just want the tax break....
Click to expand...
..
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Not at all...now its you changing the argument to another topic....the fact is a loving adult relationship needs no sanction by government....


But one segment of the population enjoys, not only being sanctioned, but being given specific benefits. While another segment of the population is denied these same benefits.

Benefits?...This has nothing to do with interfering with an loving adult relationship...as was the premise of the discussion...


Interfering? That is an interesting way to look at bestowing benefits on a relationship. One group gets the benefits and one does not. That is the premise of the discussion.

Any agreement (contract) can be signed by two adults as to inheritance, hospital decisions, dissolution rights, etc....so your stated "problem" doesn't exist in reality...

One group must seek out, and pay for, numerous contracts to get the same benefits that the other group receives by getting one licence? And you call that equality? And there are benefits that cannot be gained by contracts.


Love doesn't need a recognition by the law, church, or government

..
Click to expand...

Love also does not need to be accepted or not accepted based on the sex acts performed in the relationship. Especially since those same acts are performed in straight relationships.
 
Yurt said:
still can't answer my questions huh....
Click to expand...
Again:" There's lots of reasons we don't allow queers to marry. Unnatural is only one of them. Morality is probably the biggest."

So I answered your question, just not in the way that you wanted.
 
Damocles said:
We are arguing the whole of your position, that it was a "good" point that it should be banned because it is "unnatural", you said you would begin with this point as the central theme of your argument.

So, now that we find that it isn't "immoral" because it is unnatural do you want to move on to another "point" and continue the conversation? Or do you think that your total failure to connect "unnatural" to "should be banned therefore" is somehow something worth continuing?
Click to expand...
Just because something is unnatural isn't a basis for banning it. My issue with claiming that homosexuality is natural is that it is not. The fact that queers and their enablers won't admit this lie is an example of their immorality.
 
Yurt said:
so we shouldn't allow people who can't reproduce to marry? we shouldn't allow retards or those with cancer to live or marry?
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Again:" There's lots of reasons we don't allow queers to marry. Unnatural is only one of them. Morality is probably the biggest."

So I answered your question, just not in the way that you wanted.
Click to expand...

you did not answer those two questions that i have repeatedly posted for you....
 
Yurt said:
you did not answer those two questions that i have repeatedly posted for you....
Click to expand...
Sure I did, by giving you a reason for my obvious answer. Let me be more direct this time:
so we shouldn't allow people who can't reproduce to marry? we shouldn't allow retards or those with cancer to live or marry?
Click to expand...

People who can't reproduce, retards or those with cancer should be allowed to enter into traditional marriage. You're obviously trying to point out a hypocrisy but my reasoning below shows that there isn't one.

There's lots of reasons we don't allow queers to marry. Unnatural is only one of them. Morality is probably the biggest.
Click to expand...
 
you never before stated whether you would allow them to marry or not....your earlier statement was solely about unnatural, now it is also about morality because you can't win the argument on unnatural....and apparently you feel comfortable with the government legislating morality in this manner, i don't.....
 
Southern Man said:
Just because something is unnatural isn't a basis for banning it. My issue with claiming that homosexuality is natural is that it is not. The fact that queers and their enablers won't admit this lie is an example of their immorality.
Click to expand...

Every gay person I have ever discussed it with insisted that they were gay from birth. So it is perfectly natural for them.

As far as the morality, how is it immoral? The only thing I can see would be their sex acts. Is gay marriage immoral because they commit sodomy?

If that is the case, do we dissolve the marriages of all straight people who also commit sodomy?


And where, besides religious texts, is there any evidence of homosexuals being immoral?
 
Yurt said:
you never before stated whether you would allow them to marry or not....your earlier statement was solely about unnatural, now it is also about morality because you can't win the argument on unnatural....and apparently you feel comfortable with the government legislating morality in this manner, i don't.....
Click to expand...
Don't get all hissy now Yurt. My argument about natural was stated at the outset and hasn't changed; the argument about marriage is ancillary. Are you going to argue that homosexuality is natural, or not? :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
Don't get all hissy now Yurt. My argument about natural was stated at the outset and hasn't changed; the argument about marriage is ancillary. Are you going to argue that homosexuality is natural, or not? :pke:
Click to expand...

you're the hissy one....claiming, indignantly that you answered my questions and thus had to make it more clear....when in fact you didn't....

homosexuality is as natural as blowjobs, no morality, speaking solely of nature....both orifices are not meant to have a cock orgasm in....nor is the cock meant to go into the mouth, of either sex...tell me, dogs lick their balls, why don't you, its only "natural"

you're losing the natural argument, all you have left is morality. and on that, you're right, according to the bible. not according to our constitution.
 
Yurt said:
you're the hissy one....claiming, indignantly that you answered my questions and thus had to make it more clear....when in fact you didn't....

homosexuality is as natural as blowjobs, no morality, speaking solely of nature....both orifices are not meant to have a cock orgasm in....nor is the cock meant to go into the mouth, of either sex...tell me, dogs lick their balls, why don't you, its only "natural"

you're losing the natural argument, all you have left is morality. and on that, you're right, according to the bible. not according to our constitution.
Click to expand...

Let's keep the disgusting descriptions of queer sex out of this, along with the self- flagellation claims of winning an argument, shall we?

Again, are you going to argue that homosexuality is natural, or not?
 
Ice Dancer said:
The act of males mounting other males within species, in nature, has only to do with domination, not mating. Therefore it is natural for them, animals, to behave this way.
Click to expand...

If dogs mounting for dominance were the only example of homosexual behavior in nature, you might have a point.

However, same sex pairings have been observed in other mammals, birds, and even insects.

It is common in dolphins. In primates it is very common.




There is nothing unnatural about it. And since SM has already conceded that this isn't a reason for denying marriage to gays, its a moot point.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Let's keep the disgusting descriptions of queer sex out of this, along with the self- flagellation claims of winning an argument, shall we?

Again, are you going to argue that homosexuality is natural, or not?
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, SM, but oral sex is pretty common amoung straight folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top