Calenhardon wrote:God says so.
THAT is not logical
Advertisement
by Serviss » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:57 pm
by Ceannairceach » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:57 pm
Parhe wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:In this thread, I would like for people that are anti-gay to provide rational arguments that homosexuality is bad, evil, harmful, or whatever other negative connotations they associate with it. Please state what negative thing you associate with it, and why you think this association is rational. I wish only to hear rational arguments, so please, only post reasons that you think are rationally defensible.
Gay couples produce no offspring. If a good proportion if a population becomes gay, then birth rates would decline, either causing the population to shrink and age. Both these are horrible for the economy, and as the economy drops, so does the standard of living.
by Rupture Farms co » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:57 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you again Because a vision softly creeping Left its seeds while I was sleeping And the vision that was planted in my brain Still remains Within the sound of silence
by Unhealthy2 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:57 pm
Parhe wrote:Gay couples produce no offspring. If a good proportion if a population becomes gay, then birth rates would decline, either causing the population to shrink and age. Both these are horrible for the economy, and as the economy drops, so does the standard of living.
by Realisim » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:58 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Realisim wrote:In all honesty some people just don't like being around others due to decisions they may have made through their life.
Considering it is very difficult to determine someone's sexuality without them telling you or otherwise making it blatantly apparent(ie going to a gay bar, joining a gay dating site, etc), that is a very irrational way to go through life.
by Norstal » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:58 pm
Parhe wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:In this thread, I would like for people that are anti-gay to provide rational arguments that homosexuality is bad, evil, harmful, or whatever other negative connotations they associate with it. Please state what negative thing you associate with it, and why you think this association is rational. I wish only to hear rational arguments, so please, only post reasons that you think are rationally defensible.
Gay couples produce no offspring. If a good proportion if a population becomes gay, then birth rates would decline, either causing the population to shrink and age. Both these are horrible for the economy, and as the economy drops, so does the standard of living.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Central Slavia » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:59 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Central Slavia wrote:
Both of you, that's utterly irrelevant.
An animal can have many of the same disorders that plague people - we are not all that special. Showing homosexuality in animals isn't making it any more legitimate as showing cancer in animals makes it sign of good health.
On the other hand, it , like any other such things, totally *is* nature, because nature sucks, a lot of time it does.
there are animals that reproduce solely through homosexual means, so it can't be a disorder. and as I have stated homosexuals have on average more children than heterosexuals. so if it is a disorder, than being born with a good immune system is a disorder.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
by Ceannairceach » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:59 pm
Realisim wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:Considering it is very difficult to determine someone's sexuality without them telling you or otherwise making it blatantly apparent(ie going to a gay bar, joining a gay dating site, etc), that is a very irrational way to go through life.
If you cant tell they are gay how do you expect one to be a homophobic?
by Parhe » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:59 pm
Unhealthy2 wrote:Parhe wrote:Gay couples produce no offspring. If a good proportion if a population becomes gay, then birth rates would decline, either causing the population to shrink and age. Both these are horrible for the economy, and as the economy drops, so does the standard of living.
You're implying that a large portion of the population could spontaneously become gay, a position with no empirical support at all.
by Sociobiology » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:00 pm
Norstal wrote:Jordsindia wrote:Things aren't meant to be homosexual.
A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.
You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.
And women aren't supposed to give blowjobs. Yet, they do it because they can. Therefore, your appeal to nature is false and heretical.
by Parhe » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:00 pm
by Suzanaland » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:00 pm
Jordsindia wrote:Things aren't meant to be homosexual.
A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.
You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.
by Desperate Measures » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:00 pm
Central Slavia wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:Zoophilia, necrophilia, and pedophilia are mooted by the introduction of informed consent into the equation.
Fetishism isn't.
Furthermore... why is that even relevant? It merely differentiates between dangerous and less dangerous versions of the same problem.
To continue my analogy, if instead of into the mouth, you tried to shove bananas under your armpit, asides from starvation risk you'd be in pretty good shape.
If however you tried to breathe in chunks of one, you'd be in a risk of suffocation any time you got your hands on one.
An armpit is just as wrong a place for a banana to be shoved in as lungs are ,but the lungs are a really dangerous place as well.
However, legitimising the second on the basis it's not as bad as the first is rather insipid.
by Ceannairceach » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:01 pm
Parhe wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:
You're implying that a large portion of the population could spontaneously become gay, a position with no empirical support at all.
I am just arguing the possible wrongs of being gay.
That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?
by Moon Cows » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:03 pm
by Unhealthy2 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:03 pm
Parhe wrote:That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?
by Norstal » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:04 pm
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Central Slavia » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:07 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
by Sociobiology » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:07 pm
Central Slavia wrote:Sociobiology wrote: there are animals that reproduce solely through homosexual means, so it can't be a disorder. and as I have stated homosexuals have on average more children than heterosexuals. so if it is a disorder, than being born with a good immune system is a disorder.
Animals that reproduce by solely "homosexual" means are usually hermaphrodites where both individuals can act as either.
In other words they are following the correct procedure and you are equivocating.
it's like going from 2+2 = 2x2 (homosexuality in case of single gender species) and following with 3+3 = 3x3 (multi -gender species)
by Snot Sniper » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:08 pm
by Central Slavia » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:11 pm
Sociobiology wrote:Central Slavia wrote:
Animals that reproduce by solely "homosexual" means are usually hermaphrodites where both individuals can act as either.
In other words they are following the correct procedure and you are equivocating.
it's like going from 2+2 = 2x2 (homosexuality in case of single gender species) and following with 3+3 = 3x3 (multi -gender species)
no the one I am speaking of is completely female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but require pairing with another female to induce ovulation. in humans and bonobos homosexuality is a successful and advantageous form of behavior that results in a greater number of offspring making it a valid instinctual strategy.
remember this, humans as a species are serial monogamists, so a heterosexual pairing and homosexual pairing often happen in the same individual throughout their life time.
Glorious Homeland wrote:
You would be wrong. There's something wrong with the Americans, the Japanese are actually insane, the Chinese don't seem capable of free-thought and just defer judgement to the most powerful strong man, the Russians are quite like that, only more aggressive and mad, and Belarus? Hah.
Omnicracy wrote:The Soviet Union did not support pro-Soviet governments, it compleatly controled them. The U.S. did not controle the corrupt regiems it set up against the Soviet Union, it just sugested things and changed leaders if they weer not takeing enough sugestions
Great Nepal wrote:Please stick to OFFICIAL numbers. Why to go to scholars,[cut]
by Ceannairceach » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:12 pm
Moon Cows wrote:First of all; Let me make it clear that "homophobia" does not exist. People who yell "homophobe" at others are implying that all opposition or moral prejudice to homosexuality is not real and that conservative people are 'afraid' of homosexuals or contracting homosexuality. Which, on our side, is offensive and completely outrageous. Also, homophobia is implying that the attitude stated before "hate the sin and not the sinner" is impossible. I also try to use 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' as little as possible, as it is suggesting equivalence between the two.
My first and main argument is one that many of you will render null and void; However, Christians and other monotheistic religions believe it and practice it in their everyday lives. Failure to respect that is what many of you would consider "close-minded". The only subject of this argument is that: We find it immoral to participate in homosexual acts or 'have' homosexual feelings, and that our religious texts condemn such acts. It is our right to feel this way as much as it is your right to feel in whatever way you do towards the subject.
Second, homosexuals and liberals claim that they are 'born this way'. There is no scientific evidence supporting this despite the claims that there is such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is supported by the fact that not all twins are the same when it comes to sexual attraction. This claim tries to convince people that animals can be homosexual as well, that it is 'natural'; Yet, NONE of the 'studies' have been accepted or approved and most are immediately rejected as an animal showing dominance or in heat. These poor creatures are not homosexual, as it is their instinct and nature to reproduce, as God intended.
These are just a few of my views on this matter, but I was only asked to provide an argument. I don't care enough about this website or the community to write any more than this, and right now, I'm preparing to be flamed and trolled for stating this, although I was asked to.
by Desperate Measures » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:12 pm
Unhealthy2 wrote:Parhe wrote:That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?
False analogy. We have well more than enough heterosexuals to keep up the population, meaning that additional contributions are neither needed, nor wanted. More reproduction is not always good.
by Sociobiology » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:13 pm
Norstal wrote:Parhe wrote:Prove that gay couples don't produce offspring?
Yeah. Prove it. Sociobiology already gave sources disputing this claim.
http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2010/12/ ... -children/
And besides, we have a fucking oil crisis and you want MORE people in this planet?
by Unhealthy2 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:14 pm
Moon Cows wrote:First of all; Let me make it clear that "homophobia" does not exist.
My first and main argument is one that many of you will render null and void; However, Christians and other monotheistic religions believe it and practice it in their everyday lives. Failure to respect that is what many of you would consider "close-minded". The only subject of this argument is that: We find it immoral to participate in homosexual acts or 'have' homosexual feelings, and that our religious texts condemn such acts. It is our right to feel this way as much as it is your right to feel in whatever way you do towards the subject.
Second, homosexuals and liberals claim that they are 'born this way'. There is no scientific evidence supporting this despite the claims that there is such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is supported by the fact that not all twins are the same when it comes to sexual attraction. This claim tries to convince people that animals can be homosexual as well, that it is 'natural';
Yet, NONE of the 'studies' have been accepted or approved and most are immediately rejected as an animal showing dominance or in heat. These poor creatures are not homosexual, as it is their instinct and nature to reproduce, as God intended.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Cyptopir, Haganham, Keltionialang, Liberal gunslingers, Narvatus, The Lone Alliance, The Vooperian Union
Advertisement