Homosexuality discussion thread

[Topoliani]

God created marriage for a man and woman; human opinions are irrelevant.

"muh holy book" is a terrible thing to follow blindly as law

Besides, what's the difference between your holy book and the Holy book of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jediism, or some random cult in the middle of the woods?

[Trumptonium]

you would be committing crimes if homosexuality was illegal though

But it isn't. That is my point. I am not a danger to society.

Neither are people who commit incest, but it's wrong because it's wrong.

Is homosexuality wrong because it's wrong?

you would be committing crimes if homosexuality was illegal though

It's not, so.......

I mean, you'd be committing crimes if breathing were illegal. So would I. So would everyone. Your point?

I wouldn't be committing crimes if murder was legal. What's your point?

[Kannap]

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

Aliens, that is if you find them.

So this is what homosexuality leads too

I can sufficiently rest my case

Rest your case for what? You've stated nothing correct this entire thread and have been proven wrong time and time again.

[Jhman]

Aliens, that is if you find them.

So this is what homosexuality leads too

I can sufficiently rest my case

Rest your case for what? You've stated nothing correct this entire thread and have been proven wrong time and time again.

I don't think so, saying you're wrong does not make me wrong

[Topoliani]

Rest your case for what? You've stated nothing correct this entire thread and have been proven wrong time and time again.

I don't think so, saying you're wrong does not make me wrong

But providing reasons and proof does, people have been doing this for the past couple of pages

[Hakons]

God created marriage for a man and woman; human opinions are irrelevant.

"muh holy book" is a terrible thing to follow blindly as law

Besides, what's the difference between your holy book and the Holy book of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jediism, or some random cult in the middle of the woods?

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

[Topoliani]

"muh holy book" is a terrible thing to follow blindly as law

Besides, what's the difference between your holy book and the Holy book of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jediism, or some random cult in the middle of the woods?

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

Kinda hard to debate people who point to a book and claim it's word is law

[Salandriagado]

Happy new year you gay pillocks.

Go read Matthew 7.

You think gay people are going to disappear?

Yes, for the most part.

Ah, the "I don't understand genetics" argument, again. I notice that you haven't addressed the rebuttals to the last time you posted it yet.

2) The truth being told that the their significant proof that homosexuality is more like pedophilia, it is a known fact that their is a greater link of pedophilia to homosexuals than non homosexuals, just look at this :
http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

Not a research paper, doesn't source a research paper, no data tables, worthless.

b) fifty percent of foster parent abuse in a general population survey and 34% of abuse as determined by the Illinois DCFS was homosexual
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... omosexual/

That isn't what the research actually says. Also, the methodology is hilariously awful.

2) Homosexuality is not only detrimental to life but it also reduces the quality of life of people, now facts show that homosexuality can even reduce your lifespan as many of these people die from the diseases caused by homosexuality
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... lCode=omea

More shitty research trying to use newspapers as data.

3) Gay populations are more likely to abuse drugs and alchol than other people

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... tance-use/

Because of bigotry like yours.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"muh holy book" is a terrible thing to follow blindly as law

Besides, what's the difference between your holy book and the Holy book of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jediism, or some random cult in the middle of the woods?

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

If people are going to make religious arguments, they can hardly complain when people engage with those arguments. How would you suggest someone debate when their opposite's argument is "god says so" without taking a contrary view?

[Hakons]

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

Kinda hard to debate people who point to a book and claim it's word is law

In other words, they attribute supreme moral authority to the said text. Most people put moral authority in a certain text. For example, the secular government outlined in the U.S. Constitution prohibits other moral texts from being law.

[War Gears]

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

In regard to the Constitution, which was authored primarily by Deistic people who believed in secularism, no.

In regard to the (thankfully declining) rabid religious right trying to force laws down people's throats based on misguided rhetoric, yes.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal.

So is the homophobia.

but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread.

When that religion is the main cause of why someone holds those beliefs, it is.

[Salandriagado]

Do you think that I might actually be wrong?

Yes.

More than two is fine, once we've worked out the legal wrinkles, Inter-species is fine, providing both are able to give informed consent.

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

I'm allowing for the existence of intelligent aliens.

But it isn't. That is my point. I am not a danger to society.

Neither are people who commit incest, but it's wrong because it's wrong.

Is homosexuality wrong because it's wrong?

Incest isn't wrong either. Producing children through incest is stupid, but providing all parties consent, there's nothing wrong with incest itself.

"muh holy book" is a terrible thing to follow blindly as law

Besides, what's the difference between your holy book and the Holy book of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jediism, or some random cult in the middle of the woods?

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

There's no antitheism in this thread. There's plenty of anti-theocratic sentiment.

Kinda hard to debate people who point to a book and claim it's word is law

In other words, they attribute supreme moral authority to the said text. Most people put moral authority in a certain text. For example, the secular government outlined in the U.S. Constitution prohibits other moral texts from being law.

No we don't. Nobody with even the vaguest concept of rational thought puts supreme authority in anything, let alone something as obviously flawed as a book.

[Hakons]

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

If people are going to make religious arguments, they can hardly complain when people engage with those arguments. How would you suggest someone debate when their opposite's argument is "god says so" without taking a contrary view?

Argue that what they perceive as God's morality is not binding under a secular government.

People, we can debate without immediately resorting to insulting religious groups and holy texts.

[Topoliani]

Kinda hard to debate people who point to a book and claim it's word is law

In other words, they attribute supreme moral authority to the said text. Most people put moral authority in a certain text. For example, the secular government outlined in the U.S. Constitution prohibits other moral texts from being law.

You can still debate the constitution, which is a document that can change and nobody believes that it is absolute moral law

You can't debate a person who claims a book, that cannot change due to changing political climates, is absolute and all opinions on it are wrong

[Ifreann]

More than two is fine, once we've worked out the legal wrinkles, Inter-species is fine, providing both are able to give informed consent.

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

Well so far there aren't any, but we've only really checked this planet. There's a whole universe out there that could be packed full of sexy space people.

---

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

Aliens, that is if you find them.

So this is what homosexuality leads too

I can sufficiently rest my case

Homosexuality leads to consensual relationships between humans and, if we find some, comparably intelligent aliens.

I mean, what's the problem here? Does Hinduism forbid getting jiggy with aliens?

[The Alma Mater]

More than two is fine, once we've worked out the legal wrinkles, Inter-species is fine, providing both are able to give informed consent.

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

Angels ? Hindu gods ?
Or Aliens. Which the above technically are ofc.

[Hakons]

Do you think that I might actually be wrong?

Yes.

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

I'm allowing for the existence of intelligent aliens.

Neither are people who commit incest, but it's wrong because it's wrong.

Is homosexuality wrong because it's wrong?

Incest isn't wrong either. Producing children through incest is stupid, but providing all parties consent, there's nothing wrong with incest itself.

"Muh holy book" probably had a lot to do with the formation of your society and your morality.

The conspicuous antitheism in this thread is annoying and unoriginal. I understand some people harbor some bad views in this thread, but that's no excuse to rip on a religion for half the thread. Actually debate.

There's no antitheism in this thread. There's plenty of anti-theocratic sentiment.

In other words, they attribute supreme moral authority to the said text. Most people put moral authority in a certain text. For example, the secular government outlined in the U.S. Constitution prohibits other moral texts from being law.

No we don't. Nobody with even the vaguest concept of rational thought puts supreme authority in anything, let alone something as obviously flawed as a book.

I have the vaguest sense of rational thought and I put supreme moral authority in the Bible.

Laws and regulations are regularly given supreme authority across all nations and societies. Bylaws and neighborhood codes regulate life every day, unchallenged. Even households have written rules that ate followed. People, across all societies and all histories, have written texts and followed them with zeal.

[Thermodolia]

I'd say if we're going the as long as all adults involved are consenting route, if consenting adults want to be polygamous then so be it, that's not for me.

However, inter-species is where you lose me. What species besides humans can give written or verbal consent?

Aliens, that is if you find them.

So this is what homosexuality leads too

I can sufficiently rest my case

Homosexuality doesn't lead to polygamy if it did then how the fuck do you explain the Mormons?

[Salandriagado]

Yes.



I'm allowing for the existence of intelligent aliens.



Incest isn't wrong either. Producing children through incest is stupid, but providing all parties consent, there's nothing wrong with incest itself.



There's no antitheism in this thread. There's plenty of anti-theocratic sentiment.



No we don't. Nobody with even the vaguest concept of rational thought puts supreme authority in anything, let alone something as obviously flawed as a book.

I have the vaguest sense of rational thought and I put supreme moral authority in the Bible.

Supreme authority and rational thought are entirely incompatible.

Laws and regulations are regularly given supreme authority across all nations and societies. Bylaws and neighborhood codes regulate life every day, unchallenged. Even households have written rules that ate followed. People, across all societies and all histories, have written texts and followed them with zeal.

None of those are given anything resembling supreme authority. You can tell by how often we change said laws and so on.

[Hakons]

In other words, they attribute supreme moral authority to the said text. Most people put moral authority in a certain text. For example, the secular government outlined in the U.S. Constitution prohibits other moral texts from being law.

You can still debate the constitution, which is a document that can change and nobody believes that it is absolute moral law

You can't debate a person who claims a book, that cannot change due to changing political climates, is absolute and all opinions on it are wrong

I guess before Western secularization, no one ever debated at all. One simply can't debate a religious person. No one ever resolved an argument pre-1900.

[The New California Republic]

I feel sorry for homosexuals

Please can that belittling attitude. You don't feel sorry for homosexuals at all, you feel threatened by them...

The truth being told that the their significant proof that homosexuality is more like pedophilia

Nonsense. There is no truth to that statement, at all. All your previous arguments have failed, and now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to find justifications for your irrational homophobia. I dread to think what you are going to accuse homosexuals of next...

[The Alma Mater]

Aliens, that is if you find them.

So this is what homosexuality leads too

I can sufficiently rest my case

Homosexuality doesn't lead to polygamy if it did then how the fuck do you explain the Mormons?

Or, in fact, Hindus. While polygamy is now a bit out of style in India, it used to be the default.

To the OP: what do you think of people who get a sexchange before having intercourse with someone of the same gender ?
So for instance a man transforming into a woman and then having sex with a man. Like several Hindu gods did and such.

[San Lumen]

I feel sorry for homosexuals

Please can that belittling attitude. You don't feel sorry for homosexuals at all, you feel threatened by them...

The truth being told that the their significant proof that homosexuality is more like pedophilia

Nonsense. There is no truth to that statement, at all. All your previous arguments have failed, and now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to find justifications for your irrational homophobia. I dread to think what you are going to accuse homosexuals of next...

Not to mention they cited the Family Research Council a group which is considered a hate group and has advocated "rescuing" children from same sex couples.

[Thermodolia]

I feel sorry for homosexuals

Please can that belittling attitude. You don't feel sorry for homosexuals at all, you feel threatened by them...

The truth being told that the their significant proof that homosexuality is more like pedophilia

Nonsense. There is no truth to that statement, at all. All your previous arguments have failed, and now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to find justifications for your irrational homophobia. I dread to think what you are going to accuse homosexuals of next...

Well it can't be much worse than the FRC claiming that all Nazis were gay

[The Alma Mater]

You can still debate the constitution, which is a document that can change and nobody believes that it is absolute moral law

You can't debate a person who claims a book, that cannot change due to changing political climates, is absolute and all opinions on it are wrong

I guess before Western secularization, no one ever debated at all. One simply can't debate a religious person. No one ever resolved an argument pre-1900.

Well, the Church often did employ a "final solution"...