Rawrckia wrote:1. Ever read Shakespeare? People married pretty damn young back then. It wasn't uncommon for a twenty-something man to marry a twelve-fourteen year old girl through consent in both parties.
Irrelevant. We don't live in the 16th century anymore, and that something was common in the past doesn't make it valid.
Valcouria wrote:Nonsense...homosexuality IS a trend...just like in the next decade or two, polygamy, incest, zoophilia, and pederasty will all be trends as well, since eventually these deviants will come out of hiding and press their claims to be able to marry. And all of these will be trends as well, since all of a sudden everyone will, for some odd reason, accept them all as normal individuals, when they clearly are not.Also, regarding consent laws...as most should be aware, laws like that are subject to change...who knows, maybe tomorrow the law of consent will drop to 10 because enough people want it to be there; when everything is subjective, then everything can happen.
Your entire post is not only one giant fallacious falsehood...it's also utterly irrelevant. You have not proven homosexuality to be a trend. You just farted the typical 'slippery slope' bullshit on our faces and pretended it was some sort of 'argument'.
Valcouria wrote:Explain to me then the purpose of having TWO existent genders, then...if homosexuality were natural, as you claim, then there would only be a single gender.
Every time you post this sort of arrogant nonsense, a Biology teacher kills herself.
So, what sort of asinine bullshit am I to refute now?






