Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Neil Patrick Harris and his partner just had twins, what do you mean it doesn't produce children...

I know hetro of couples who use a surrogate...is their marriage not moral or legal or any of those other words because they can't produce children? What about those couples who have to use fertility drugs?

Every time you have sex it doesn't produce a child, thank goodness!

:palm:

homosexuality did not produce that child rana

:palm:
 
Calling it normal moral natural and healthy enables he queers. It is none of those. Yet normal marriage is all of those.

Your logic escapes me.

not so fast sporto....you support heterosexual marriage and that means you support everything that comes with it

that is your logic. you say that because i support gay marriage, i am a queer enabler. using your logic, then you enable everything that results from marriage, and that includes divorce, because without marriage, you cannot have divorce.

you're also a blowjob and felatio enabler, as many married couples engage in oral sex
 
Are those so upset by Homosexuals also as upset about blowjobs?

Cuz I gotta tell you, I like me a blowjob...
 
not so fast sporto....you support heterosexual marriage and that means you support everything that comes with it

that is your logic. you say that because i support gay marriage, i am a queer enabler. using your logic, then you enable everything that results from marriage, and that includes divorce, because without marriage, you cannot have divorce.

you're also a blowjob and felatio enabler, as many married couples engage in oral sex

Yurt, I'm not sure logic enters into the equation.
 
Its been naturally occuring in humans for all of recorded history.... Just because an act does not produce children does not make that act unnatural.

Masterbation is natural, it does not produce children....

Using your defination, monogamy is unnatural also....

Animals don't have homosexual relationships and dress up as leather daddies in drag and take on feminine qualities and when it does occur in animals its rare and temporary. Do you feel the same about incest and cannibalism?
 
Animals don't have homosexual relationships and dress up as leather daddies in drag and take on feminine qualities and when it does occur in animals its rare and temporary. Do you feel the same about incest and cannibalism?

Not true. Many species of animal do indeed have homosexual relationships, and even form long term same gender bonds. National Geographic has documented it in several species of mammals and birds.

Your generalizations concerning homosexuality show either an ignorance about the topic or a desire to simply ignore the truth in favor of sensationalistic nonsense.



There is a huge difference between incest or cannibalism and homosexuality. In the situation of incest a child is harmed. Cannibalism is usually performed by those who killed a human, therefore someone was harmed. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults. No harm done except to your delicate sensibilities.
 
There is a huge difference between incest or cannibalism and homosexuality. In the situation of incest a child is harmed. Cannibalism is usually performed by those who killed a human, therefore someone was harmed. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults. No harm done except to your delicate sensibilities.

I'll take issue here. While this is typically true, it is not always the case. There can be incestuous relationships between legal adults.
 
Not true. Many species of animal do indeed have homosexual relationships, and even form long term same gender bonds. National Geographic has documented it in several species of mammals and birds.

Your generalizations concerning homosexuality show either an ignorance about the topic or a desire to simply ignore the truth in favor of sensationalistic nonsense.



There is a huge difference between incest or cannibalism and homosexuality. In the situation of incest a child is harmed. Cannibalism is usually performed by those who killed a human, therefore someone was harmed. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults. No harm done except to your delicate sensibilities.

Animals don't have homosexual relationships, and you missed the thrust of the Bass' post. Animals should not be used to rationalize human behavior, just because homosexual "behavior" occurs in animals doesn't mean its ok for humans for cannibalism and incest also occurs in nature and in animals, now how can you justify one as ok and reject the others since they all occur in nature among animals?
 
Animals don't have homosexual relationships and dress up as leather daddies in drag and take on feminine qualities and when it does occur in animals its rare and temporary. Do you feel the same about incest and cannibalism?

Not sure where cannibalism fits in with homosexuality and incest. Perhaps it should be noted that when referring to "eating", in a sexual context, it does not refer to literal cannibalism. :)
 
Animals don't have homosexual relationships, and you missed the thrust of the Bass' post. Animals should not be used to rationalize human behavior, just because homosexual "behavior" occurs in animals doesn't mean its ok for humans for cannibalism and incest also occurs in nature and in animals, now how can you justify one as ok and reject the others since they all occur in nature among animals?

It is the harm factor, if any, that should be the only concern in a free society.

The burden of proof is starting to fall on lawmakers to justify the necessity of certain laws and rightfully so. While everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs nothing less than cold, hard facts should be required before we place restrictions on the behavior of others.
 
Whats wrong, SM? I am not talking about divorce. I am talking about a marriage that ends in divorce. If the marriage ends in divorce, was the marriage normal, moral, natural or healthy?

I am not talking about the end, but about the marriage itself.

????....you're talking about A marriage, not about marriage....people don't get divorced because marriage is fucked up, they get divorced because they fucked up at marriage.....it's like arguing I enable drunk driving because I buy a car.......

the true analogy for your argument is that you want elephants to be able to drive.....we point out that elephants have none of the qualifications for driving cars......you argue we can build something big enough for an elephant to drive and still call it a car, even though it never will actually be a car......
 
Last edited:
Animals don't have homosexual relationships, and you missed the thrust of the Bass' post. Animals should not be used to rationalize human behavior, just because homosexual "behavior" occurs in animals doesn't mean its ok for humans for cannibalism and incest also occurs in nature and in animals, now how can you justify one as ok and reject the others since they all occur in nature among animals?

Yes animals do have homosexual relationships. I understood your post. My comment about animals was in response to the argument that its not "natural". It is, in fact, natural. Perhaps not particularly common, but it is natural. Jarod was commenting on that as well.

I don't need to justify one and reject the other. I am not the one saying homosexuality is not "natural". I don't expect humans to get our moral and social guidelines from nature.
 
????....you're talking about A marriage, not about marriage....people don't get divorced because marriage is fucked up, they get divorced because they fucked up at marriage.....it's like arguing I enable drunk driving because I buy a car.......

the true analogy for your argument is that you want elephants to be able to drive.....we point out that elephants have none of the qualifications for driving cars......you argue we can build something big enough for an elephant to drive and still call it a car, even though it never will actually be a car......

The argument was made that marriage is normal, moral, natural and healthy. I questioned the validity of that statement by asking about a marriage that ends in divorce. Since divorce has been said to be immoral, would that make the entire marriage that ended in divorce immoral.

Nothing to do with elephants driving cars.
 
The argument was made that marriage is normal, moral, natural and healthy. I questioned the validity of that statement by asking about a marriage that ends in divorce. Since divorce has been said to be immoral, would that make the entire marriage that ended in divorce immoral.

Nothing to do with elephants driving cars.

wrong on several accounts.......divorce is certainly an instance of marriage gone bad.....however, the totally unrelated concept of "gay marriage" is an external attempt to alter the nature of "marriage".....divorce results because one or both partners fail at marriage......"gay marriage" results because of political activism on the part of liberals......you are trying to compare apples and feces......
 
wrong on several accounts.......divorce is certainly an instance of marriage gone bad.....however, the totally unrelated concept of "gay marriage" is an external attempt to alter the nature of "marriage".....divorce results because one or both partners fail at marriage......"gay marriage" results because of political activism on the part of liberals......you are trying to compare apples and feces......

No, I am trying to argue against the use of "natural" as a standard for legal relationships in the US. Nothing more.
 
Animals don't have homosexual relationships, and you missed the thrust of the Bass' post. Animals should not be used to rationalize human behavior, just because homosexual "behavior" occurs in animals doesn't mean its ok for humans for cannibalism and incest also occurs in nature and in animals, now how can you justify one as ok and reject the others since they all occur in nature among animals?
What does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

First you are wrong in this assertion:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Second, what does the activity of animals have to do with how you, or any human for that matter, should act? Do you think that if a monkey does it you should too? They masturbate publicly and throw their poop at each other, I've even seen one drinking pee directly from himself. Should this be the standard we set for humans? I think we should reach a little higher than "animals don't do it, so we shouldn't" especially when you are simply wrong about what animals aren't doing.
 
not so fast sporto....you support heterosexual marriage and that means you support everything that comes with it

that is your logic. you say that because i support gay marriage, i am a queer enabler.

Now you're being completely illogical and misrepresenting my position.
 
Animals don't have homosexual relationships and dress up as leather daddies in drag and take on feminine qualities and when it does occur in animals its rare and temporary. Do you feel the same about incest and cannibalism?

Animals do engage in homosexual behavior, I am sorry that you don't watch the new nature shows on TV which shows several species that engage in this type of activity.

"Moving further, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships just like humans. There are species where heterosexual pair-bonds don’t normally form for long. Good examples are bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds that often stay very long."

"A good example is the male walruses that often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will return to a heterosexual pattern when the breeding season come back. Other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, practice homosexuality throughout their lives. He also observed that 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."

http://www.guideto.com/science-nature/life-science/animals/homosexuality-and-the-animal-kingdom/
 
Back
Top