"Researchers find bisexual and exclusively gay dolphins"

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
Discuss my list? You want me to list only those who are homosexuals?

What possible difference could that make in whether or not they contributed something of value?

You are the one who claimed that those who do not reproduce contribute nothing of value. I simply showed you the error of your thinking.
Click to expand...
OK, your Denseness. We'll couch it this way: Homosexuals are queer because:

1. Many refer to themselves as queer in the first place, AND
2. Their sexual preference interferes with the reproductive process which is a crucial step in the preservation of our race.

Better?
 
Granule said:
OK, your Denseness. We'll couch it this way: Homosexuals are queer because:

1. Many refer to themselves as queer in the first place, AND
2. Their sexual preference interferes with the reproductive process which is a crucial step in the preservation of our race.

Better?
Click to expand...

Ok, so they call themselves queer and they don't reproduce. And?? All of that means what?

Also, you are the one who tried to make the point that not reproducing means they are not contributing anything of value.
 
WinterBorn said:
So the whole natural/unnatural argument is irrelevant to you? Ok, I actually prefer that too. But it is still fun to shoot holes in the arguments of the ignorant.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the natural/unnatural argument is totally irrelevant, I just said I didn't think homosexuality was a choice. That doesn't mean I believe people are naturally born homosexual, I don't believe that. Freud would say, your sexuality (sexual proclivities) are the result of many variables in your life experience. You may be more inclined to be attracted to a homosexual lifestyle, however, we haven't isolated a "gay gene" as of yet, so this is still speculative at best. I think most of the time, homosexuals are the result of conditions beyond their control, things that happened or they experienced at a young age, perhaps? In any event, a certain percentage of people who have developed this proclivity, will act upon it and engage in homosexual behavior. So, homosexuality is not a choice, homosexual behavior, is.

And just because I know it drives you guys crazy, the same applies to pedophilia and bestiality. Some people are predisposed to be attracted to children or animals in a sexual way... probably as a result of something in their upbringing, and a certain percentage of these people will make the choice to act on their urges and desires, while other will subdue these feelings.
 
I was actually going to start a pool on how many posts it would be before Dix brought pedophilia & bestiality into the mix.

No, Dix - you're not a bigot. Really.
 
Animals also kill their young and eat feces. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is acceptable.

For the record, I am 100% for gay rights, and I don't believe being gay is a choice. But I also think it is a dumb argument to compare animal behavior to that of humans. Apples and oranges.
 
General Burnside said:
Animals also kill their young and eat feces. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is acceptable.

For the record, I am 100% for gay rights, and I don't believe being gay is a choice. But I also think it is a dumb argument to compare animal behavior to that of humans. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
I'll accept enough of this response to give it a thumbs up.
 
WinterBorn said:
Dominance and submission can be great aspects of sexual behavior. But that is a whole different topic. And I recall Damo saying I would catch hell from posters for discussing it on these forums.
Click to expand...

Do, tell...
 
OneCell said:
I was actually going to start a pool on how many posts it would be before Dix brought pedophilia & bestiality into the mix.

No, Dix - you're not a bigot. Really.
Click to expand...

Is it more bigoted to have an intelligent, open and honest conversation on a subject than to develop some kind of 'PC-speak' way of discussing this without offending homosexuals? I am not attempting to offend, but we have to acknowledge homosexuality for what it is, a deviate sexual behavior, not unlike other deviate sexual behaviors. The difference is, homosexuality has been accepted by our culture and society, and no longer considered taboo. Anything "bigoted" in acknowledging that? Or is it MORE bigoted to believe that somehow, homosexual behavior is not a sexual behavior which deviates from the norm?
 
Dixie said:
You don't understand how gay marriage is an issue because you dismiss the "sanctity of marriage" argument as a smokescreen. To escape your bigotry, you need to try and realize, religious people are always going to be opposed to homosexuality... just the way she goes. You don't have to agree with their reasons, you aren't expected to accept their rationale, you are free to have a difference of opinion. Religious people generally also believe in the importance of family in building a civil society, and marriage is a foundation and cornerstone of family. So, with the exception of some rare and unusual denominations, most religious people are always going to be against gay marriage. You can call that hate or bigotry, you can insult them and call them names, they still have every right in the world to their opinion, same as you.
Click to expand...

That religious people dislike gays or oppose gay marriage is really irrelevant.

The gay marriage issue is about benefits bestowed upon married couples by the government. And while you and I are allowed to like or dislike people, agree or disagree with people, and choose who we give our approval to, based on sexual orientation, the government is not free to do anything resembling that.

Now, it would be preferable to have the gov't out of the marriage licencing business altogether. But if that isn't going to happen, they should at least base the benefits on fair principles and not on religious dogma.
 
WinterBorn said:
So the only contribution any person makes is reproduction? So your claim is that Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, Louis Armstrong, Jane Austen, Francis Bacon, Ludwig Van Beethoven, President James Buchanan, Julia Child, Helen Clark (New Zealand Prime Minister), Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Sir Francis Drake, Amelia Earhart, William Faulkner, Dian Fossey, President Warren Gamaliel Harding, Katherine Hepburn, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Helen Keller, Sir Isaac Newton, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Florence Nightingale all have no real contributing value?? But some tramp without the sense to use birthcontrol has value? Warped sense of value you have there.
Click to expand...

So women who don't use birth control lack sense and are 'tramps'?

Warped sense of values you have there.
 
WinterBorn said:
If you would care to point out where I said that I would be happy to address it.
Click to expand...

I already quoted you.

Did you say "some tramp without the sense to use birthcontrol has value?"

Or was that someone else?
 
\\(())// said:
I already quoted you.

Did you say "some tramp without the sense to use birthcontrol has value?"

Or was that someone else?
Click to expand...

I did indeed say that. It was part of a longer statement. But I did not say that I believe she has no value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top