Homosexuality a trend?

[Mavorpen]

Your application for a consent liscense has been denied based on: Poor cognitive development

What? Why?

As a side note, I don't support lowering the age of consent for marriage or otherwise, and I don't support polygamy. But your arguments that it is really a slippery slope and completely impossible is stupid, this IS possible and people are taking steps towards this.

Actually no, that's not what the argument is. The argument is that it's a slippery slope and therefore irrelevant. No one has ever said it's impossible. Of fucking course it's possible. It's just irrelevant.

[The Misotheist Reich]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal . Almost every basic human behavior is exihibted in inferior lifeforms such as dogs or monkeys . Homosexualism is not one of those behaviors. Homosexual relationships are not dictated by love, but indeed by a complex microorganism, or a gene more complex we can never begin to comprehend its abilities. It induces a form of sterilization by inhibiting the host from mating with a member of the opposite sex. Sexual organs where built for the sole purpose of procreation. So only a disease, or a genetic disorder can cause our built in attraction for the opposite sex to stop working.

[Rawrckia]

And me telling him to "Say something smart" was name-calling.

He just seriously claimed that adoption didn't exist thousands of years ago.

Anything he says shouldn't be taken seriously.

Rome invented marriage and monogamous relationships then. It's settled.

[Blasveck]

In a century it will be trendy to be gay?

Is that what you're saying?

Because until you've got any sources, that has no base in reality.

It's also increasingly popular in most western countries, and since the West is trendy, whatever the West thinks is trendy will become trendy for the whole world. Just look at the food they eat in China and the clothes they wear. There's no escaping Western influence and the power of public opinion to change societal norms.

My proof for why people will be able to change their orientation: we'll see the breakdown of evolutionary constraints.

Is that enough? No? I'll just nip into my Tardis, now where did I park it? And where are my keys? Good gracious, stuck on Earth in this miserable century...

You say "popular"
Although I'm pretty sure it's because more people are coming out.
Aren't you for gay marriage?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Choosing to be gay just to be a hipster is silly.

Well yes, but I thought that's what hipsters were all about?

Yes. Hipster culture is crazy.

[Blasveck]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal . Almost every basic human behavior is exihibted in inferior lifeforms such as dogs or monkeys . Homosexualism is not one of those behaviors. Homosexual relationships are not dictated by love, but indeed by a complex microorganism, or a gene more complex we can never begin to comprehend its abilities. It induces a form of sterilization by inhibiting the host from mating with a member of the opposite sex. Sexual organs where built for the sole purpose of procreation. So only a disease, or a genetic disorder can cause our built in attraction for the opposite sex to stop working.

You know what is also exhibited in animals?
Homosexuality.

Argument from nature is a bad argument.

[New Libertarian States]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal . Almost every basic human behavior is exihibted in inferior lifeforms such as dogs or monkeys . Homosexualism is not one of those behaviors. Homosexual relationships are not dictated by love, but indeed by a complex microorganism, or a gene more complex we can never begin to comprehend its abilities. It induces a form of sterilization by inhibiting the host from mating with a member of the opposite sex. Sexual organs where built for the sole purpose of procreation. So only a disease, or a genetic disorder can cause our built in attraction for the opposite sex to stop working.

*points you to nature*
Its completely natural.
If it was dictated by a microorganism, we probably would have noticed it by now.

[Mavorpen]

He just seriously claimed that adoption didn't exist thousands of years ago.

Anything he says shouldn't be taken seriously.

Rome invented marriage and monogamous relationships then. It's settled.

How cute. Not only do you flame, you backpedal on what you claimed. You claimed that adoption didn't exist several thousand years ago. Please tell us when Rome was created.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal .

What is normal has already expanded with IVF treatment. Genetic engineering will advance the point where any relationship possible - including intra-species - can be 'normal' by your definition.

[Rawrckia]

Actually no, that's not what the argument is. The argument is that it's a slippery slope and therefore irrelevant. No one has ever said it's impossible. Of fucking course it's possible. It's just irrelevant.

"it is irrelevant because it has been used as a slippery slope in the past. Someone is now presenting logic and argument so I'll just do this"

[Blasveck]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal . Almost every basic human behavior is exihibted in inferior lifeforms such as dogs or monkeys . Homosexualism is not one of those behaviors. Homosexual relationships are not dictated by love, but indeed by a complex microorganism, or a gene more complex we can never begin to comprehend its abilities. It induces a form of sterilization by inhibiting the host from mating with a member of the opposite sex. Sexual organs where built for the sole purpose of procreation. So only a disease, or a genetic disorder can cause our built in attraction for the opposite sex to stop working.

And you never have that source about it being a virus either, liar.

[Mavorpen]

Actually no, that's not what the argument is. The argument is that it's a slippery slope and therefore irrelevant. No one has ever said it's impossible. Of fucking course it's possible. It's just irrelevant.

it is irrelevant because it has been used as a slippery slope in the past.

No, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[The Misotheist Reich]

If a relationship does not consist of a heterosexual man, and women capable of producing children it is not normal . Almost every basic human behavior is exihibted in inferior lifeforms such as dogs or monkeys . Homosexualism is not one of those behaviors. Homosexual relationships are not dictated by love, but indeed by a complex microorganism, or a gene more complex we can never begin to comprehend its abilities. It induces a form of sterilization by inhibiting the host from mating with a member of the opposite sex. Sexual organs where built for the sole purpose of procreation. So only a disease, or a genetic disorder can cause our built in attraction for the opposite sex to stop working.

*points you to nature*
Its completely natural.

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intended relations.

[Rawrckia]

Rome invented marriage and monogamous relationships then. It's settled.

How cute. Not only do you flame, you backpedal on what you claimed. You claimed that adoption didn't exist several thousand years ago. Please tell us when Rome was created.

"he said several thousand years ago"
"if I pick an example (that isn't even the oldest) it applies to ALL examples"

If you're not drunk or otherwise intoxicated right now I'm seriously considering petitioning site admins to enforce COPPA

[Mavorpen]

*points you to nature*
Its completely natural.

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intendted relations.

How can something that evolution produced not be natural?

[New Libertarian States]

*points you to nature*
Its completely natural.

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intendted relations.

It happens in nature, naturally.
IT IS NATURAL.
nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

[Mavorpen]

"he said several thousand years ago"
"if I pick an example (that isn't even the oldest) it applies to ALL examples"

When was Rome founded?

[Blasveck]

*points you to nature*
Its completely natural.

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intended relations.

1. Animals can be homosexual. You seem to be ignoring this.
2. It's called evolution.
3. You're still a liar, because you haven't provided a source for it being caused by a virus.

[New haven america]

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intendted relations.

How can something that evolution produced not be natural?

Because(Apparently) It's a perversion, or God didn't want it.

[Genivaria]

"he said several thousand years ago"
"if I pick an example (that isn't even the oldest) it applies to ALL examples"

When was Rome founded?

The Roman Kingdom was founded in 753 BC.

[The Misotheist Reich]

Its not natural. It is more complex than you think it is. Is it a coinsidence that sexual organs were built to receive each other. Heterosexual relations are the only natural, and intendted relations.

How can something that evolution produced not be natural?

Evolution produced two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, and to ensure the surival of a species. Anything else is an ufortunate complication standing in the way of evolutions plan.

[Rawrckia]

it is irrelevant because it has been used as a slippery slope in the past.

No, it's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

"I can't read my own nested quote that states that "the argument is that it's a slippery slope""
"he's backpedaling somehow I can taste it in the air"
"I'll disregard that I still haven't proved anything on the original definition of 'monogamous relationship intended to conceive and raise a child' and continue to assume that homosexuality is unrelated"

how did you get 30k posts without getting banned, I've seen users warned for far less

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

It's also increasingly popular in most western countries, and since the West is trendy, whatever the West thinks is trendy will become trendy for the whole world. Just look at the food they eat in China and the clothes they wear. There's no escaping Western influence and the power of public opinion to change societal norms.

My proof for why people will be able to change their orientation: we'll see the breakdown of evolutionary constraints.

Is that enough? No? I'll just nip into my Tardis, now where did I park it? And where are my keys? Good gracious, stuck on Earth in this miserable century...

You say "popular"
Although I'm pretty sure it's because more people are coming out.
Aren't you for gay marriage?

Me? Yes, but what's that got to do with the discussion?

By popular I mean homophobia has almost vanished, gay pride marches are like carnivals, and everybody seems to be celebrating and reveling in the new sexual freedoms. If the trend continues heterosexuals will become downright envious. And ambisexualism will be sought by everybody.

[Genivaria]

How can something that evolution produced not be natural?

Evolution produced two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, and to ensure the surival of a species. Anything else is an ufortunate complication standing in the way of evolutions plan.

Evolution doesn't have a plan.

[Tlaceceyaya]

How can something that evolution produced not be natural?

Evolution produce two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, and to ensure the surival of a species. Anything else is an ufortunate complication standing in the way of evolutions plan.

No. Also, you show your naïvety regarding evolution by referring to it as the survival of the species. The species does not matter. The individual genes matter. It is survival of the genes, not of the species.