The ethics of homosexuality.

All I can say is (LOL)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and I agree I'm getting dizzy myself The only phobiaI have is of spiders. Not scared of anything else! (maybe death) but that's another topic altogether!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that I know of. They don't have opposable thumbs. Now it's your turn: The point is significant because _____. (Fill in the blank, please.)

As to the rest of that post, some better visual organization would be helpful. However, I can at least mention that NARTH, a group you mention in that post, is a group of doctors dedicated to a political sentiment despite medical data. They're upset that the medical organizations they would otherwise belong to don't make exceptions for their particular principle.

Say it all you want, ReighnStorm. Your conduct defines you. When you stop with the hyperdose of irrationality, perhaps perceptions will change. Do some reading, and get back to us. You're just spouting stupidity while ignoring the people around you, and neither did fathers hate their daughters when they sold them off like cattle to the richest man.

Maybe you sincerely don't mean to be hateful, but in that case you'd best take some time for self-examination.

For instance,

"This is a natural disaster, and what happens in most natural disasters." I can't tell what you mean here, since the sentence is in such crappy shape, but why are you invoking natural disasters?

"To tell me that it's perfectly harmless to end humanity because your to busy sexing each other...............do I need to say more??" Yes, actually, you need to show how gay people lead to extinction.​

If it was a mere case of paranoia that could be assuaged, I would consider it more an issue of confusion. However, you've made it perfectly clear that you're not here for any productive purpose, so that pretty much rules out the sympathetic interpretation.

You can't possibly expect people to take you seriously when such incoherence is the center of your position.

If I undertake too many of your irrelevancies at once, it seems I would confuse you. You're having a hard enough time keeping up with your own end of the discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose he meant nitpicker. Sorry for a two word post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nickpicker looks better

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Listen, whether I said it or someone else says it. The point is still the same. What I posted is not flawed as far as the discussion goes. Only to the rules of how you post it. Those are general threads of discussion. This is not just about science and religion. Aren't you a person without tags attached to yourself. Tiassa was not satisfied with my own opinion, even though that's what this post is about. You either agree or you don't . I don't personally believe that homosexuality is a choice. I think you're either born gay or not. Some people however do choose it because of something traumatic that happens in their lives, but I don't consider that a true homosexual.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I thought I stated that homosexuality is not natural as far as reproducing only. That's where the penguin thing came from.

 

Mod Hat - Citation

Just a reminder of the policy concerning plagiarism:

Please update any outstanding posts, else they be deleted according to policy.

It is not the wish of moderation or administration to institute any fixed and official citation policy at hand, but in addition to considerations of plagiarism, failure to cite sources appropriately draws inherent contextual questions to the information at issue, and weakens one's argumentative foundation.

 

Who did you say directed that one organization? Bob Knight? Like, Bobby? Bobby knight? The insane(although I didn't mind him) basketball coach? Or, another?

The post said that there was a problem with the selection of the homosexuals. Usually couples of urban raising and comparitively educated. Well, that's the type of people most likely to recieve an adoption, whether gay or straight. Also, there isn't that much of a problem with the children being gay also. It doesn't matter, naturally, people are attracted to the other sex. Very occasionally in nature do "real" homosexuals emerge(one's that truly desire that-not those buying into a trend, not those experimenting, not those who are just looking for sex). These are the one's most likely interested in adoption. Due to this, a very small percentage of children will even have the option of being adopted into a gay household. Most of these children, although with a greater influence in their environment, will most likely be straight, even though the percentage is higher than in straight families. Because of all this, the threat of the gay population increasing to such a degree that the amount of children being born dramatically dropping is mostly nonexistent. Even if this were not true A)(as much as I hate this argument) it will limit population, but not cripple it in any way, and B)there's always cloning(Interestingly enough, you could even take this to the degree that you could have a child of two father's genes. Then, it is not a clone, and you don't have the "threat" of people that look the same). Cloning, no matter which way you look at it, is very interesting, and can lead to things increasing longevity, fitness, thought(not sure how to put this, but you know what I mean). If you don't like the last two concepts, you could at least go with increasing longevity.

 

I do not oppose homosexuality, only the adoption of children by gays.

:m: It takes along time for an extinction to occur. That conversation was a few pages back on a somewhat different issue. But here's a general idea of what I was speaking of. I was merely saying that with more homosexuals born, our humanity as heterosexual beings will become extinct. Will probably never happen on a large scale. But it's still worth talking about to a certain extent. Anyway this is what Natural Disaster means to me on this:
Extinction-The fact of being extinct or the process of becoming extinct: “The most effective agent in the extinction of species is the pressure of other species (homosexuals).
natural disaster - any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences.
procreation-To beget and conceive (offspring).
To produce or create; originate.

Less procreation of heterosexuals means extinction of our kind. It's more of a force of nature than a single one event. Again extinction takes years. :m:

 

That is also not the point. It is against the rules of the forum, and the international copyright laws agreed upon at the Berne convention to do what you have just done twice, after I explicitly warned you about it. Copying someone else’s writing isn't just frowned upon by forum, it also opens you up to criminal and civil legal action by the rightful authors of your posts should they be so disposed to pursuing such cases against you. Your lack for respect of such intellectual integrity, copyright laws, Aristotelian logic, and the art of debate makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Also, your source articles originate from right wing think tanks and political action groups who are concerned with drawing political conclusions from inconclusive or fraudulent studies, not the medical establishment, and are hence only relevant in as much as conservative opinions are relative to this discussion.

 

WAIT! What on earth did you just say? I'll cut and paste. Extinction-The fact of being extinct or the process of becoming extinct: “The most effective agent in the extinction of species is the pressure of other species (homosexuals). There it is. Since when were homosexuals a different race, and since when were they putting pressure against the "other" species?

Sometimes extinctions occur fast, don't deny that.

Did you read my post? We can survive.

 

Does use of birth control also equate to the extinction of humankind?

 

If someday all females were told that they had to take birth control until menopause and Abortions had to be done to anyone who got pregnant. Along with miscarriages,murder,hystorectomy,visectomy(??) I guess it could be possible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh yeah, and no intercourse whatsoever

 

A few people can't speak for the world

 

It's a natural thing.

But if some people don't want to tolerate it, that's their choice.

Thus I advocate having gay neighborhoods as we do here in Houston.

Keeps everyone happy.

Given the predilection of the homosexual community for promiscuous behavior, that's not an unreasonable request.

 

The most learned and well respected people can certainly stand for the policies of our nation. Ideologues and pundits should not stand for the policy of the nation until they can produce evidence that successfully refutes the medical establishments views on homosexual parenting abilities. At this point we should be arguing about the value of the sources you look to for information on these topics, however rather than sight their opinions you chose to plagiarize them for yourself in an academically dishonest way that precludes any further discussion on this vein.

 

That is an interestingly extreme scenario, can you describe how you believe homosexuality to be on the same order as such a thing as forced sterilization of all humans?

 

That's a really stupid argument, Android. Had gays been able to marry, been able to look forward to a stable monogamous relationship, many of them would have. Remember that any statistical comparison of promiscuity should take place between unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals. The numbers still won't be even, but they'll be a lot closer to.

Of course, I'm not surprised. Arguments tending toward the conservative--e.g. making a pointless issue out of promiscuity--generally despise history, as is the case here.

 

Reignstorm.....so your a WOMAN?....in the other thread which--surprise surprise seems to be about you F A A V E subject, 'Queer-bashin'--you go on about being a 'real man' where i'd assumed you were talkin about yerSELF.........

ok. this one. you say you and your 'hetero frineds' fear EXTINCTION?......excuse me a mo...hahahahahahahahHAHA!....thats better

what you got girl is 'engulfment syndrome'..hmmmm, wait..... i KNOW what i'll DO. change 'syndrom' to 'dis-order' and then i can call it 'mental disease' and make a fukin MINT from givin you and yours meds...! that's how its done init?

but look. seriously. you fear engulfment. this is what you do. first you create a flase binary between 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality'....and then you fear 'engulfment' from the very thing you've divided yourself FROM

i wonder if you will dig this?

also. the fear of engulfment is VERY patriarchal. it's the fear of the Feminine. which obviously in your case--bein a woman, even women can get sucked into

 

Randomly capitalized words never helped anyones argument, duendy.

 

Of all the misconceptions reguarding homosexuality out there I like this particular myth the best. Are there promiscuous homosexuals; certainly. Is there a slutty element; without a doubt. However the very fact that homosexuals are fighting for marriage rights should tell you that they're also quite capable of holding long-term monogamous relationships.

Furthermore, I invite you to sit down and watch 15 minuets of television. Just 15 minuets on any basic cable station will do. Take note of how many times you see bouncing jiggling boobs trying to sell you a product.

Heterosexuals are promiscuous too, this is one of the cornerstones of the entire advertising industry. Lewd and overt sexuality is the oil that greases the wheels of our economy. Don't hate the players (or in this case, a rather arbitrary segment of the players) hate the game.