I'm 30 but they forced me to use my right hand so much I'm not ambidextrous. It also messes up your brain since it's grown to work one way and by switching hands forces the opposite ends of the brain to start doing what it wasn't supposed to. Thank you Catholics for as always, fighting against suffering.
The guys in these videos are both clueless lol. I would love to come on their show and argue with them lol. They basically think've debunked the heterosexual argument. Not at all. However, I did get a good laugh.
i dont have a problem with gay marriage.... but im also glad i had a mom an a dad rather than 2 dads or two moms. i was an easy enough target as is without adding that to the list. so i do oppose this just not strongly they need to make the word "fag" a non insult make a bunch of gay inventors and war heros front and center.
these are weak arguments and gays need to improve their image abroad before this can or should be accepted. 2 dads right now are more embarrasing than a drunk welfare dad.
@MsReefmaster Do you assume all gays are the stereotypical image. They should really ask the child if they want two moms or two dads. Really most gay couples who want to adopt or who go down the egg or spem donar route are settled down they are mature enough to want a child and would be loving parents. Its not an impulse thing like buying a dog at a shelter. Some trailer trash or alcoholics on social welfare could be termed embarrassing, there are bad parents out there who are hetrosexual.
@seonidh i dont know what a stereotypical gay couple is. and since when have we said childeren are mature enough to make a decision like who raises them. childeren cant give consent for sex how can we expect them to know any possible consequences of calling two men in the same house "dad".
and why cant they just have their own kids? any gay couple that is stable enough that id be comfortable enough seeing raise a kid could afford a surrogate or a sperm bank.
@MsReefmaster you stated "gays need to improve their image" so whats that if not stereotypical. Children do have a say in where they go in a foster home its the same with be it in a same sex or traditional marriage. Also you fail to see that to adopt there is a vetting process where the authorities look severly into all aspects of the couple financially, socially, lovingly provide for the child.
They cant just have their own kids there is no guarantee in IVF will work same as heterosexuals.
@seonidh they do need to improve their image, and make the sterotype one of "gays make better parents then heteros" if they want to adopt. i dont stereotype gays and have a family member that is gay so try again with me stereotyping them.
can you honestly tell me your decision making skills were peaked out at age 8? kids cant make a descision like that. they dont know enough.
and what if they make a mistake, a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy.
@MsReefmaster OKAY you have a gay family member but still generalize that "a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy". Since when do gays have to prove they are better parents? I think I can smell bullshit on your part here. You are anti gay with a comment like that
@seonidh wouldnt it be easier for them to adopt if they were proven better parents? and they do have to prove this because so many people dont want or dont think they should adopt. have your own or non at all. i have 1 gay friend to. so keep on telling me how anti gay i am. i dont care what gays do when they do it in privacy. i get annoyed at pride marches too and wish they would stop but not enough to protest them and i wouldnt stop them or arrest them. this has always been about kids for me.
@MsReefmaster having a gay friend does not entitle you to state "what if they make a mistake, a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy" regardless if you know gay people you do not have the right to state that a lot of gays are paedos. Thats sick!
@MsReefmaster - wow. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper. Does your "claimed" gay relative even speak to you? Citing the Catholic priesthood wasn't very persuasive. Yeah, given their requirements, you're probably going to find some (very conflicted) gay Catholic priests. But, hmmm - let's contrast that with the straight Protestant male Christian youth counselors that are diddling little girls. Or the straight female teachers that are jumping their teenage male students. Please.
@MsReefmaster So...you'd rather have a dad not be able to provide for you, and is drunk most of the time, than two loving fathers? See, we have to allow gay marriage to STOP the prejudice and the embarrassment. You're also being very biased. What if they don't want to have kids? What if the kids DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
@shortazn97 honestly yes i would rather have a drunk dad than two fathers. im not backing away from that. and theres another issue that can come up. some step parents fuck their kids. and with gays there will always be 1 or more likely 2 step parents double the chances of this. and there will be no biological desire to protect a child that isnt theirs.
and what if the kids DO give a fuck? what if they WILL give a fuck? make the adoption age 15 for gays to ensure their childeren know 4sure.
@MsReefmaster Wow...why don't you try talking to kids who have incompetent parents first? Their lives are miserable. The people who SHOULD love them, DON'T. And they're straight.
There's a reason the couple would adopt the kid, soo they're actually more likely to CARE about the child, rather than fuck them like a parent who treats them like shit, because they married for the money. I'd rather have two moms :P
If the kids don't like it, they'll complain, like in a straight marriage.
@shortazn97 youre probably not straight so i dont think youre the best person to ask if they would want same sex parents. ive stated i am straight and would rather have a lone deadbeat dad than two moms/dads. and whats more i dont hate gays and am not opposed whatsoever to gay marriage.
kids cant make that choice and ill give you that i do believe some gay parents would be much better than straight but the kids might still resent it once theyre teased in school about it.
@MsReefmaster 1. I know plenty of straight people that are fine with it 2. Half-straight(:
Having a deadbeat dad is auto-resentment. Two open-minded people that care are so much better.
We have to make changes happen for more people to be accepting about it. Like interracial marriages, which were frowned upon as 'weird' but now it's perfectly ok.
@MsReefmaster youre looking at things from how the gays would like it. im more looking at it from a childs perspective. and im very greatful i had a mom and dad growing up when i put myself in that situation. and can you GUARANTEE that none of these childeren will be molested by their adoptive parents? that they wouldnt pressure their children to be gay? it would be damning if a grown man of two fathers comes forward one day retelling how he was raped by both dads. google bigger brother molestin
@MsReefmaster Why would a gay couple pressure their child to be gay? They've obviously felt the pressure of prejudice, and coming out or not, and would not wish that upon anyone else, and probably have had many moments wishing they weren't gay themselves.
Also, imagine you had an interracial family. You want to make change and make people accept it, not hide like some coward and let them take your rights and your happiness.
Doubt they would abuse their kid. Too fabulous *joke*
@shortazn97 so no gay person has every sexually abused a child? adoptive straight parents sometimes do.
there is no comparison between an interracial family and gay family unless the interracial couple is gay. that has nothing to do with my opposition to gay adoption. the kids the kids the kids thats all this is about. all you seem to imagine is the best case scenario. i can admit it would happen there are excellent gay couples out there. but the worst case scenario means trouble for all gays
@MsReefmaster Which is why there should be no difference between between these couples. The comparison is the prejudice that each face when wanting equal rights, and the community looked down upon these marriages, but the interracial marriage pulled through, so I think gay marriage should too.
You can't look at all the risks and run away. These people are taking the risk by simply being gay. I'm pretty sure actually being gay is worse than being adopted by one. The kid can learn to be better.
@MsReefmaster - "the kids the kids the kids" will only have trouble when they encounter bigots like you. Seriously. I don't doubt your concern. You know how much venom you would inflict on these kids. Fortunately, not everyone is as hateful as you, and having two loving parents, even of the same gender, makes up for a whale of a lot of the kind of bile you spew. There will be bad gay parents. There will be bad straight parents. But, there's nothing to indicate that straight is magically better.
@47f0 man shut up. would gays not pressure striaght kids to be gay? straights do it. are gays morally superior somehow? would gays never sexually or emotionally abuse their kids? straights do. and its much worse for a straight child to be abused by a gay one ... or two. and you think gays are hated now just wait untill 20 stories of "my two dads raped me all my life" get out. you havent a thought in your head, and now i hope you do get what you want and all the consequences it brings.
@MsReefmaster - Yet in spite of all the "straight pressure" we end up with gay kids. Never thought about that? Some kids will be harmed by their parents, adoptive, natural, step or otherwise. You have yet to present the slightest molecule of actual evidence that kids of gay parents are more at risk, other than your bigotry. So your best, and only argument so far is "man shut up". Hardly persuasive. My sons are straight, as am I, but I'd rather they be flaming drag queens than regressive bigots.
@47f0 yeah but i doubt any of those kids are abused by their parents showing them "how it should be done" and "try doing it this way" youre straight and support gays that seems to be all we have in common. youre calling on the thunder and you bet your ass gays will reap the whirlwind. your insults mean nothing to me but i do enjoy counter insults. youre a moron, you were born one and youll die one, you see a straight path with no consequences. tell me have you imagined a worse case scenario?
@MsReefmaster - Sorry, but you'd be wrong. My ex-wife was a reporter with the court beat, and trust, grooming is grooming, straight or gay. She brought home some real horror stories, and the majority of them were straight adults preying on children. Again, I may be a moron, but you still have cited absolutely zero evidence, other than your bigotry, that gay parents are any worse (or better, for that matter) than straight parents. Your only argument is your prejudice - and that's not evidence.
@47f0 so we should all take the advice on marriage and raising kids from the divorced dude? a tempting proposition. if you want examples of adult gays molesting childeren just google big brother , priest molestation cases. many of these cases are seemingly normal well adjusted adults doing predatory homosexual attacks on children. as far as married gay couples molesting their kids i dont know of any because i dont know of any gay couples adopting. if i did im sure that figure would change.
@MsReefmaster - Yep, she divorced me. She also heard voices that told her that I, her children and her mom were trying to kill her. You try keeping that relationship working. Again, some anecdotes aren't a legitimate study, and again, you consistently fail to provide any evidence that gay parents are intrinsically worse parents. I mean, any other evidence than your own bigotry, and ad hominem "oooh, he's divorced" non-arguments. "You're sure" - how, precisely?
@47f0 hows this for an argument males are more likely to sexually abuse their children than women. esspecially step fathers (which are straight) with their step daughters. now instead put two men in that role. both have no genetic relation and have a young son the sexual orientation they choose to pursue. men do have stronger sex drives than women im assuming being gay doesnt change this. and also how do you marry someone that hears voices and not know it? or did you just think "no big deal"?
@MsReefmaster - hmm - judging from the frequency of female teachers jumping their students in the news these days, I'm not so sure the myth of the male as the sole sexual aggressor holds water. But I guess, since you've decided that only men have any sexual proclivity for kids, that you are totally fine with lesbian moms. Good for you. That's at least a start. BTW, you still haven't offered any evidence other than your bigoted theories.
@47f0 actually i have you just chose to ignore it. i cant give examples of gay couples abusing their adopted childeren because as far as i know they cant do that. and i never said women arent sexually agressive too its just far less common... and rape done by a female against a male is... unheard of so im assuming theyre welcome sexual advances. what evidence do you have that gays wont abuse their children?
@MsReefmaster - HUH? Is that how rights work these days? What evidence do you have that someone won't use a car to rob a bank, so we shouldn't let people have cars? Seriously, I'm deeply curious as to the lead paint content in your nursery when you were young. We do not, in this country at least, make a habit of denying people rights because somewhere, somehow, someone might, maybe, possibly, hypothetically do something wrong.
@47f0 lol you havent a thought in your head. ive given possible scenarios, ive given evidence that straights do pressure gay children to be straight, i given evidence that step parents are far more likely to abuse their children, and more, and you cant even give me any evidence that gays wont abuse their kids? i can give you evidence that they will and i have. google big brother molestation again you clearly didnt do it the first time. or priest molestation. youre a fucken idiot.
@MsReefmaster - I wonder who hasn't a thought in their head. Do we take away everyone's rights because of what a few individuals might do? Take away your right to own a dog, because someone else MIGHT be an irresponsible pet owner? What a grotesque, Orwellian nightmare of a society that would be.
.
Again, the only "evidence" you have provided is your own fevered and bigoted imaginings. You argue that straights pressure gay kids is "evidence" - of what- that straights shouldn't have kids?
@47f0 lol you keep calling me bigoted and yet i havent said anything against gays not once. ive never said gays are unable to raise children, or that theyre unnatural. unlike you i can think and do.
would you allow children to own guns? why not? because of what might happen? do you have strong evidence that children with guns would be a bad thing? they could be educated and defend themselves from pedophiles. i stand by what ive said about gay adoption and you personally. reap what you sow.
@MsReefmaster - uhmm, yeah. You're not bigoted against gays at all. And David Duke swears he's not really bigoted against blacks. They're just inferior, that's all. As a matter of fact, we have excellent evidence that children and firearms are a bad idea. As it turns out, the CDC keeps very good numbers on a very bad problem. Again - actual evidence as opposed to bigoted conjecture - children are factually, demonstrably less safe with access to guns.
@47f0 have you ever met a kid that owns a gun? sure theres probably thousands of incedents you can list where they did shoot or kill themselves or friends ect *cough big brother cough priest molestations cough imam molestations and many unreported incidences*. youre acting like kids cant make their own choice in such an inportant decision and adults should make it for them because they dont understand any possible consequences. you only see straight forward black and white and see no pitfalls.
@MsReefmaster - I grew up in Texas. I WAS a kid who owned a gun. Oddly enough, yeah, we do make decisions for kids that they aren't mature enough to make. Something gay parents can do as well as straight parents.
.
BTW - lovely item in the news about a straight, Christian couple who beat two of their adopted daughters to a pulp, killing one. So I guess you'll be banning straight couples adopting now?.
.
We do not remove rights from people because of what might happen - or what someone else did.
@47f0 well see about that beating their daughers to death which i knew about is that something that a gay couple would be incapable of? that isnt an argument for your cause. some straight couples do some horrific things. and i dont doubt that gay couples would do horrific things too. again one of my major points is the backlash for gays after such an incedent would be something to fear. can you not get that?
@MsReefmaster - I see. So, with zero evidence that gay parents are any worse, you'll deny all of them their rights "to protect them from backlash". How very paternalistic of you. Yet you think it's wrong to ban straight parents from adopting because of these straight Christian cretins who murdered their adopted daughter.
.
Tell me - do you ever get headaches from tying your cerebellum in knots like that?
@47f0 also as a one time kid myself im glad that i had my mom and dad raise me and not a gay couple. and i dont think im in the minority thinking that. and i doubt future generations will have proportionally different veiws. so are we now to cater to a minority groups in spite of how everyone else feels? again your glaring thoughtlessness shows like our star. you dont or cant see a big picture and future consequences your marriage history will attest to that.
@MsReefmaster - the big picture is called the Constitution, and it promises equality from the government. That same Constitution insures that a majority of bigots and idiots can't deny the rights of a minority. That's why women can vote, we don't have slaves, minorities can vote, and interracial couples can marry. That's why we do not have a democracy, which is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Re: my marriage - you try making it work with a schizophrenic - or maybe you are?
@47f0 you know that same constitution allows for everyone to own a gun as well. but common sense stops society from activly enforcing that. thats what you lack. common sense, empathy, i could go on but ive insulted you enough your arguments are poor and im starting to think you might just be debating this in some desperate attempt at human contact.
@MsReefmaster - Sigh. If I were desperate for human contact, trust, I would not be having a dialogue with Archie Bunker. What I AM desperate for is to live in a country where all citizens have the same rights, unabridged by bigotry and ignorance. I don't doubt there would be a backlash if there were an incident involving gay parents - and you'd be at the head of the lynch mob of village idiots with your pitchfork and torch.
@shortazn97 and you know what i know some gay couples WOULD put pressure on their kids to be gay just as a straight parent pressures their gay childeren to be straight. how can you not see that? ive met pushy gay people that think im afraid to come out just because im okay with hanging around them. stop thinking best case scenario im not arguing that it cant happen. im arguing that it wont always happen and i wouldnt want to be someone who signed on for gay marriage after a bunch of sexual abuse
@MsReefmaster Uh, it 1. probably has to do with your attitude, you like gays, but you basically oppose these rights to adopt 2. It's a joke. I make it all the time.
And you need to stop looking at the worst case, because you've basically turned down a bunch of people's rights based on risk. You can't run away from just risk.
But you should ban straight marriages because most of those are 'false' marriages that have no love, and the risk is even higher.
@shortazn97 no convincing you i can see and you havent pursuaded me even a little. good luck convincing someone that doesnt like gays. i think its common sense to run from unacceptable risks, and in my opinion gay adoption is one such risk. i wouldnt protest a movement for gay adoption beyond a few text messages like this online if an actual law was instated. and i wouldnt bother reporting poor gay couples. but im not everyone and i dont approve and i dont think i ever will.
@MsReefmaster If we don't try, then what's the point? And if we always run away, how would we ever get to our goals? The biggest regrets are the risks we didn't take.
I mean, the cliche "I'd risk anything" ? That ring a bell?
You want to get to point C. You've made it to point B so far, but you get scared and run back to point A. So, what's the point in the false sense of safety if it doesn't go toward anything?
@shortazn97 that comment was worthy of a response. you might one day acheive your goals. and you did convince me a little that it might actually be benificial one day. but maybe youre asking for too much too fast. when things are rushed mistakes happen. keep fighting for what you believe by all means but my dire hypotheticals are more of a deterrent than your perfect hypotheticals so i wont support it till i see real evidence. youll have to find a way besides "just let us show you" u need anothe
@MsReefmaster - ah. So the straight stepdaddies, foster dads, or adoptive dads molesting their little girls are fine. No? That's not what you said? Actually, it kind of is. Gay does not equal molestation, but you seem to think it does. Sexuality regarding children is not, repeat, not the same as sexuality towards adults, straight or gay. Please provide actual evidence that children of gay parents are at more risk of inappropriate contact from the parents. BTW - your bigotry is not evidence.
im saying this more for the kids but it might end up saving a lot of gay lives in the future too. you have an image very easily tarnished. if such an incedent were to happen you can bet gays would be targeted and killed. their childeren (in my scenario some would) removed their assets seized. you cannot speak for everyone that is gay promising not to abuse children. be careful what you wish for what you get might have dire consequences. what u want might not be what the kids want.
@MsReefmaster - Wow. Maybe if we worked on educating bigots like you, then being a child of gay parents would not be so traumatic. Talk about weak arguments. You project your bigotry on everyone else, therefore a drunk welfare dad must be more acceptable than a loving gay or lesbian couple. Absolutely mind-blowing. You claim you're fine with gays, but I haven't seen a single thing in your posts that would suggest that. Maybe white trailer-trash straight couples should "improve their image". Geez
Here you go "I don't dislike black people, they just don't have any principles, what they are doing just doesn't work"
Instead of wanting to impose your views of what a sex life should be, why don't you accept people should be able to make their own choices and your accusations are ignorant and altogether boring.
The religious think they have god on their side, they think it makes them righteous, it just makes them delusional and bigoted. You are despicable :)
I would at this time ask you to stay away from me. Your bigotry disgusts me. I can't believe you would actually compare a loving relationship to potential death. Pathetic, the lengths bigots will go to try to justify the fact they are prejudiced is just amazing.
Assuming evolution is completely wrong for the sake of argument. That does not mean spirituality has anything to do with it. You religious people create false dichotomies.
I don't like bigots. I don't much feel the need to debate with them.
You think people should deny their sexual orientation because you don't like it. This causes higher rates of depression in gay people and ultimately results in higher rates of suicide as well. How immoral.
Research about rats. They display empathy for each other. Why is it weird that humans do?
Many animals have empathy for those within the group. It sure helps in species where individual survival is dependant on group survival...such as humans.
You are stating heterosexuality is morally correct because it is natural. Then you state that one cannot judge what is moral on what is natural.
You don't see a contradiction here?
Homosexuality can be useful in the animal kingdom and possibily in the past of humanity. At the current time it is neither harmful or helpful to our reproductive abilities.
Your claim is now that homosexuality is wrong as it is unnatural ( I do not agree) thereby implying that what is natural is what is moral and desirable. In this case heterosexuality.
You are using the same logic you dismiss as ridiculous.
There are two positions one takes in any argument. The first is ones own view of the issue in question. The second is the refuting process of the opposing claims.
In this case gay lib is responding to a claim that homosexuality is unnatural by pointing out it occurs in nature.
Your claim that they are asserting this makes it moral comes from a failure to understand the argument process.
No you do not understand what the gay rights activists are saying at all. When gay rights activists say it is not "unnatural" this is a response to the statement from the religious right that it is unnatural.
Please point me to where in the gay lib movement they say all natural things are moral and desirable.
That is actually what the right is saying by stating it is unnatural and therefore undesirable.
gee, no - I would have never guessed that. But then again, you only support my argument with this point . Consider, given the proclivity of a rather sizable section of the population to opt for the marital alternative of polygamy why does the state [legally] outlaw that configuration if, in fact, one definition/form of marriage is as equal as another ? Could it be (as I've argued) because the state has determined from its protracted experience sit's not beneficial. UR argument is deficient
just cause animals do it doesnt make it natural lol animals attack ppl too..is that natural? NO! homosexuality IS unnatural DUH! come on use ur brains that what theyre there for! why do u think women were made with vaginas and men were made with dicks? cause we were MADE FOR EACH OTHER! why r ppl so dumb? and aids affects gays cause studies show theyre more sexually active and more sexually experimental that heterosexuals! not a coincidence! theyre nasty!
@nikitty020 I think YOU'RE then one who needs to use their brain. :/ Why the fuck do you think animals attack people? Territorial disputes, hunger, defense, INSTINCT. A bear will gladly attack a human if it means protecting her cubs. It's been documented, hundreds of thousands of times, as well as other NATURAL happenings in which a human was attacked by another animal. What the hell kind of an argument is that?
"we were made for each other" that argument only works if you are religious. which I am assuming you are. So I will point you to the theory of evolution to prove this wrong. Enjoy.
@angeltears87 no it makes sense if u use common sense. i didnt use any religion in my short explaination and it still makes sense. evolution? lol so u came from a chimp? good luck trying to prove that!
@angeltears87 so because we share similarities we came from them? we share similarities with many animals does that mean we came from cats and dogs as well? and all i know is i'm not ancestor of primates. no amount of science can prove that.
no because we can look step by step at how animals have evolved.
No all animals that exist at the moment are equally evolved. We do however share common ancestors with them all including cats and dogs. We are just closer in the evolutionary tree to other primates.
@angeltears87 I don't believe in religion and I would make that argument! Survival of the fittest is through breeding. It is the natural method to evolve. Now in the future you may be able to manufacture babies, but that is what we'll call the abnormal method. I've no issue with Gay marrying each other, just don't shove it down our throat that it is normal and natural. What you do in your bedroom and relation is your choice, but don't bend the facts to suit your decision.
@angeltears87 I'm stating the fact and correcting your errors. We need heterosexuality for our species to survive thus it will always be the norm. Anything outside of it as abnormal.
@angeltears87 We've talked about that before. We all know homosexual activities exist in the animal kingdom. Have proof of productive homosexual in animals? I've never read heard of reproduction through homosexuality. Yet, just saying it occurs means NOT it is normal behavior especially in a more intelligent society that understands what is required to survive as a species. Just like I'd not consider oral sex / anal sex as normal. They're sexual acts that ppl are free to try. But they aint norm
so, no one wants to force churches to give gay marriages, there are plenty of open minded real Christian churches around who would. Sorry about the three post, my cell's acting up.
@iBSeannn Why do you not get that a very large number of rights go along with the legal contract of marriage that the gay communiy should be able to have as well. Also, you're mixin
you know whats not natural, religion. i mean if it was we would be born already knowing and believing in god. but we are not, we have to be taught god by our parents and churches, inst that why we have sunday school?
conclusion: catholic religion (marriage) forbids homosexual practices therefor it is an breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) to 'legally' allow marriage (in a church, done by a priest) between homosexuals.
argument 1: gays cannot conceive children together, the religious sacrament of marriage, (thats when 2 humans are joined in a religious celebration because of their love for eachother) is to conceive children, therefor there should be no need or desire from the gay community to be allowed to marry. also, people do not need a legal document to prove their love for one another.
@AceofDiamonds0 marriage DID come from the bible but athiests are allowed to marry because marriage doesnt require u to be religious. it just requires that it is between a man and a woman. this is why only the one who defined marriage(GOD) should be able to say who can marry and who cant. thats why theres no such thing as gay "marriage," its an illusion of marriage. God would NEVER join such a "union."
ya, like the definition of marriage hasnt been changed before. (watch?v=ASsJQY5jgmk) i mean there has to be one christian who remembers or can open a history book and see that god and the bible were once used to deny interracial marriage. but just like that soon christians will 'forget' that they were ever against gay marriage.
@angeltears87 sorry that evolution crap is flawed. the ppl that wrote those books seem to act like they know everything that happened years before ppl were even created but they dont. all i'd be reading is theories from ppl who refuse to admit they really dont have the slightest clue what happened before their time. marriage came from the bible thats why the ppl who made the law define marriage as between man and woman. they were christians who got it straight from the bible.
Marriage was around for hundreds if not thousands of years.
"if a theory in science was a fact then 80% wouldnt choose religion over evolution if it were a fact."
This statement makes no sense.
However in science a theory is a fact. It starts off as hypothesis and then when there is a lot of evidence to support it then it is known as a theory.
80% don't choose religion over evolution. Many people follow their religion and accept evolution.
@iBSeannn 3. kind of true thy do not need a legal document to prove their love. however, saying gay couples cannot have kids so they shouldnt get married is idiotic. what about straight couples who get married but do not want kids should they be denied a marriage? what about elderly couples that get married?
and by denying gay couples the right to marry is like saying heterosexual marriage is better than homosexual marriage, in your opinion maybe, but not everyone thinks that way.
@AceofDiamonds0 "what about straight couples who get married but do not want kids should they be denied a marriage? " u didnt even understand what they said. theyre saying gays r defling themselves trying to mix sexes that obviously dont work since their unnatural sex practice doesnt allow them to bare children. heteros have already shown their relationship is natural by populating the world. everyone knows they r natural thats why theyre accepted and homos arent.
@iBSeannn and if marriage was about procreation, then no one would have children out of marriage, and procreation would be a requirement to get married
I burn everyday, phantomzassassin, as I live near the USA/Mexico border. It appears that not only are you are unable to spell PHANTOMS correctly, but also it is apparent you are unable to think of a cogent counterargument to what I posted. Still, I am grateful that most people seem to have liked my comment so far, since it is one of the highest rated ones.
@j4unumber1 ok first of i put that since i relised i had not used that term in over a year, and was in fact implying that you burnt (owned) christians there is no need to be a dick about it. although i do see how it could be confusing if one has not herd that term used to describe the owning of a person due to social differances. i am in fact a proud athiest and anti-thiest XD
Yeah there is homosexuality in animals, but I define unnatural by the six characteristics of a living organism; one of which is reproduction. Mose studies on animal sexuality will say that it is based on dominance, playful behavior, aggression, etc. Not to mention that homosexuality in an animal context is a horrible analog to how we humans view and discuss homosexuality. What's "ridicules" is your logic.
It has also been shown that homosexuality in animals (and in the origins of humanity) to protect reproduction. It does this by keeping a group of females together and harmonious so the male can spread his seed. For example lions.
Also it is a rebuttal. We are not saying homosexuality is right because it is in nature, we are saying it isn't wrong based on an unnatural argument, due to it existing in nature.
@angeltears87 Perhaps I am missing something but I don't see how your analogy of lions demonstrates homosexuality with animals. It would seem to me that it would demonstrate polygamy with animals. I just don't think that using animals to show that homosexuality is natural is a good argument considering that whatever might be seen as homosexuality in animals is so far distant from what the discussion is really about with humans and homosexuality.
1) something can be both polygamous and homosexual (such as with the lions)
2) There are two parts of a debate, the arguments and the rebuttals. I am not saying homosexual marriage should be allowed because it is natural I am just rebutting the conservative claim that it is unnatural, so a ban on homosexual marriage under the claim it is unnatural does not work, because it isn't true.
I initially missed a point you made here. That compariing homosexuality in animals to homosexuality in humans is flawed.
1) Humans are animals
2) homosexuality in animals and in the origins of humanity has been shown to be optimal to heterosexual reproduction. So your comment that it is wrong on the basis it isn't helpful to reproduction is incorrect.
@angeltears87 Sadly youtube only provides us with 500 words to debate with, which isn't fitting for this topic. My point that I didn't get across was that homosexuality hasn't been given any premises that can draw a sound conclusion that it is natural. So my point was that the burden of proof was on homosexuality. But the lions argument could also open to a single mothers group. I just thought there were too many dissimilarities for it to be an effective analogy.
Sorry I don't mean to spam you or this video but I also had to point out that the burden of proof that homosexuality is unnatural is on those ooposing same-sex marriage. This is because they are using the argument to prevent gay marriage. The homosexual movement however is not stating that homosexuality should be allowed because it is natural, they are merely saying it shouldn't be disallowed on that basis
i agree with a lot of what these two are saying, but one logical falicy that came up one time too many is gays not being able to pass on their genes. homosexual=/=sterile!!!! gay people can, and do, have children of their own. and i'm not talking about gay people who were once part of a hetero relationship, i'm talking about the countless gay and lesbian couples who choose to start a genetic family together. i'll state it again; homosexual=/=sterile! fact.
evolution totally has a goal... survival, projections for reproduction of a species
Well, i would have to agree that it is not normal in evolution, there is no clear reason for it to happen. But as they say, i could... overpopulation. i don't know... but it happens, so just live with it and don't take rights away from people
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
@aaulabi He answers your point at 0:26. It is natural because it occurs in nature, whether or not you find it desirable is irrelevant. Also we are ALL animals, I don't consider my self superior just because I am a human. By the way unless a person is vegan we do in a sense hunt for pray via the farming industry....so i think their logic is pretty durn amazing. (my opinion:))
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
'Traditional marriage", from a global standpoint, is NOT one man one woman. In fact, one man many wives was the standard. Indeed, the more wives a man had the more respected he was in the community - including what is known as biblical lands. Also, traditional marriage tended to be arranged ones. Now is there any person living in the USA willing to reasonably argue that marriages should be chosen by family members instead of himself? Didn't think so...
All you got to say for yourself is "burn"? Dude I burn everyday! I live on the USA/ Mexico border. This part of the world is one of the most hot places on Earth too. In the summertime, it can be in triple digits at night on occasion.
Burn... Is that all you have to say? You simply are unable to come up with a cogent counterargument to what I said.
Definitions always change. by the classical definition of atheism, christians were atheists alongside jews and the others that didnt believe in the greek gods. As the lack of belief in the gods meant that the gods were referring to Zeus, Poseidon, etc...
Eventually the term became "the lack of belief in ANY gods".
Dictionary definitions ought naught control our lives. We in our own actions ought dictate what definitions control our lexicons. Copy a dictionary folks for the truth is just sitting there in perfect juxtaposition. Seriously don't sleep on this one life, one time chance to truly get your god. God is word and word is God. Why not take it in without all the praying and highfalutin kowtowing ways of the old. Praise god like never before folks. Get that PHREESMART that FreeDUMB keeps denying you.
Copy a dictionary, and become ambidextrous. The wholeness of life is situated within our minds, hands, and in the moment. They say that the right hand is syncing you to the LEFT hemisphere of your brain, while the left hand syncs you to the RIGHT half. Seriously think about it, ambidexterity will, I repeat will, make you see clarity. And GOD is word and WORD is goD. So I mean who wants in on the full. Ego death included. Jump on it while this life is sitting in its existence. One life to life!?$
I'd say something more to support your third argument.
Some species go even beyond human sexual possibilities. In nature we can not only find homosexuality, but also hermaphrodites or asexual creatures which reproduce themselves without sexual intercourse (plants, snails, etc)
Human sexual diversity fits perfectly in nature. That's actually the natural order.
The gay=not normal argument is also irrelevant to a marriage contract. Homosexuality is legal in the U.S., so whether you believe it to be "normal" or not has nothing to do with the fact that gay people exist in the U.S. and need to be protected in their unions just like "normal" straight people do. Either they deserve the same benefit/protection as other legal citizens or you give them a tax cut for being gay (since they're not full citizens apparently).
I've nothing against gay people, but from a society building block (evolutionary), this should not be encourage. My issue with gay pride is the encouragement of being gay as a reflection of openness. Being gay is abnormal since the organs used in the sexual acts are not intended for these purposes. Furthermore, I've no objection to two ppl same-sex living together as long as no sex is involved. But to teach children that misuse of our body parts is "OK" or natural is a deception of the truth.
@silentwhisper2009 So you are against handjobs and blowjobs too? So if a chick wanted to suck your cock, you wouldn't let her because it's a "misuse of our body parts".
You got me wrong. I would not go about promoting hand-jobs/blow-jobs or anal as a healthy alternative life style. For the point, sure hand-jobs and blow-jobs are not natural use of body part. I won't teach kids in school that blowing your partner is normal sexual practice
@silentwhisper2009 But if somebody else wants to do this, it may not be an intented use of that body part, but it is their body and they may do what they want with their property.
@LiNaK37: sure, they're free to do whatever they want to their body. Should they be allowed to dictate to society that this is a healthy alternative? Should we teach our children to use Marijuana or Cocaine as alternative lifestyle?
I'm all for help to those with gay syndromes (born gay with sexual organs). But I'm against supporting those who choose to abuse their body. They should be allowed to do it, but not allowed to make it seem the norm.
@LiNaK37: but would you want kids to be taught in schools that smoking marijuana is normal if you feel like it? As for gay-sex, do u not agree that anal sex is a misuse of body function? It is even very harmful if not protected or lubricated..
@silentwhisper2009: Heterosexuals experiment with anal sex all the time, some like it so much that they do it almost as often as regular sex. Some homosexuals will never have anal sex, some will do it often. Any kind of sex can be harmful if you're not prepared.
If your weed point is that schools shouldn't teach what you don't believe is right, talk to your children about your thoughts on the matter. Smoking pot and who you fall in love with aren't even on the same level, one isn't a choice.
@RaptorClaws24: I'm talking about society, where do you draw the line? If we are to allow abnormal things to be taught in our school as normal (e.g. being gay), and we allow kissing in public, then we allow gay kissing, we allow topless women then where do you draw the line? Why isn't society going to eventually allow public sex? If two consenting adults want to have sex in public, why should we as a society oppose them?
@silentwhisper2009: You think that letting kids know who they fall for may be a man or a woman depending on natural preference is akin to allowing nudity and public sex? You're using the 'slippery slope' to justify ignorance. The more a person understands something, the more they can sympathize with it and the better off we all are. Sex isn't something we show or talk to kids about until they are old enough to handle it. Gay marriage isn't about sex, it's about families of all kinds being ok.
@RaptorClaws24 CONTD: Gays can do whatever they want in their bedroom. But in public, and within the public domain, we've to set the standards on what is best for continuing the building of our society. Since gay-sex is unnatural, there is no reason to teach it in classes or even project it as an acceptable practice to the public. Notice, I'm saying gays are still free to practice it and they've equal rights as partners, but do not have the right to dictate to society what is the norm.
@silentwhisper2009: Normal is incredibly subjective. Normal is what you are comfortable with and it varies from person to person. Just because you don't have gay sex doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's unnatural to *you*. However, not telling kids that some families do have two loving parents of the same sex is WRONG, because you may have a child who comes out as gay and then thinks they may never have a chance at having happiness and a family of their own.
@RaptorClaws: Normal and Abnormal is what is dictated by nature as the mainstream. Based on your argument of subjectiveness, blind people are normal, so are those ppl into pee feitsh, and ppl who have sex with animals. Which means, you're willing to accept anything as normal and integrate it into society, which brings another important subject that Gay leads to more "Normal" things like polygamy, animal marriages and all sort of weird ideas. It is not natural to YOU, but normal to them.
Blind people *are* normal, they have a disability but they aren't any less a person for it. Your animal nonsense is completely IGNORANT and PREJUDICE. Animals are not people, they don't give sexual consent! Children are incapable of giving consent as well due to severe emotional ramifications, therefor Gay people neither have sex with animals or kids. If people want plural marriages I'm not here to stop them, that's their thing, but I personally wouldn't. You are lacking common sense.
@RaptorClaw: 1) Animals give consent in the way of allowing it to happen (unless it was forced entry - animal rape?!), u've never heard of a dog f@$cking a woman? How else would it occur if the dog did not voluntarily participate in it??
2) You're bringing the issue of consent on the basis of marriage, I'm talking about sexual behavior. I believe government have no place in marriage. They should only be issuing partnership certificates.
@RaptorClaw24: You have no place to object to a person who wishes to have a sexual relationship with an animal, do you?
Now, lets take this a step further and assume a small minority of people enjoy having sexual relationship with their dogs, do we categorize these as abnormal or normal? Should we state to our children: Zoophilia, another alternativey lifestyle that people should be accepted as normal.
How about Insect sex? Should we allow adult brother/sister to have sex, maybe "marry"?
My argument, outside of what is normal sexual behaviour for the purpose of re-production, what should we categorize as normal? Where do we draw the line?
Why should gay people get the special treatment than other "consenting" beings can draw upon? Father/Daughter, Brother/Sister, multiple wives marriages, multiple husbands marriages, if definition of marriage is partnership, there is nothing in it that says exclusive to two people. How about multiple partners marriages? y treat them any differ.
@silentwhisper: If any brother and sister wanted to marry, or a father and daughter wanted to marry, I'd be fine with that, as long as both parties were consenting. As well, I'd be okay with someone marrying multiple persons, as long as they were all okay with it. I also don't see why you care about being "normal." Asians are the most prominent race in the world, so are the other races people "not normal?" Should non-asians be shunned and frowned upon because they're "not normal?"
@CommonIntellect: Your argument about Asian is unrelated. We're talking about tangible abnormalities. Then, you've no problem teaching in our schools that a brother can marry a sister, and the kids can gangbang each other (once they reach the age of adultery), then marry each others and marry their siblings.
I'm ok with gay ppl getting together. I'm AGAINST presenting the situation as normal behavior.
When did I say that we had to teach that in schools? And when did i say i was okay with kids gangbanging each other? and since when is adultery an age? all i said was that if a person wants to marry their sibling, and their sibling wants to marry them, i would be okay with it. and since when is polygamy "kids gangbanging each other and then marrying each other and their siblings?" and anyway, what is "normal behavior?" what i think you're saying is that its the majority, but please correct me.
Also, if "normal behavior" is the majority's behavior, then would you be against teaching that its okay to be vegetarian? and anyone, homosexuality is NOT "behavior," it's a sexual orientation. Saying that you're okay with gay couples, as long as it's not taught as normal behavior is like saying that you're okay letting black people live, as long as they are still looked on as worse than white people.
@Common: Normal is what is dictated by nature through evolutionary means and required to sustain our species development. Thus, gays & lesbians are not normal.
Vegetarians are normal since they don't contradict the statement above.
I'm open for fully consenting adults to do whatever they want. But I don't want that to be taught to our children as normal (definition above), nor being accepted as typical social behaviour
U still didn't answer, you want us to teach kids incest is good?
I'm 30 but they forced me to use my right hand so much I'm not ambidextrous. It also messes up your brain since it's grown to work one way and by switching hands forces the opposite ends of the brain to start doing what it wasn't supposed to. Thank you Catholics for as always, fighting against suffering.
Molandria 3 months ago in playlist The Atheist Experience
The guys in these videos are both clueless lol. I would love to come on their show and argue with them lol. They basically think've debunked the heterosexual argument. Not at all. However, I did get a good laugh.
DannyBISFAJohnson 5 months ago
No, I would not rather have two dads than one. I'd like to have two moms (:
shortazn97 6 months ago
i dont have a problem with gay marriage.... but im also glad i had a mom an a dad rather than 2 dads or two moms. i was an easy enough target as is without adding that to the list. so i do oppose this just not strongly they need to make the word "fag" a non insult make a bunch of gay inventors and war heros front and center.
these are weak arguments and gays need to improve their image abroad before this can or should be accepted. 2 dads right now are more embarrasing than a drunk welfare dad.
MsReefmaster 9 months ago
@MsReefmaster Do you assume all gays are the stereotypical image. They should really ask the child if they want two moms or two dads. Really most gay couples who want to adopt or who go down the egg or spem donar route are settled down they are mature enough to want a child and would be loving parents. Its not an impulse thing like buying a dog at a shelter. Some trailer trash or alcoholics on social welfare could be termed embarrassing, there are bad parents out there who are hetrosexual.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh i dont know what a stereotypical gay couple is. and since when have we said childeren are mature enough to make a decision like who raises them. childeren cant give consent for sex how can we expect them to know any possible consequences of calling two men in the same house "dad".
and why cant they just have their own kids? any gay couple that is stable enough that id be comfortable enough seeing raise a kid could afford a surrogate or a sperm bank.
MsReefmaster 8 months ago
@MsReefmaster you stated "gays need to improve their image" so whats that if not stereotypical. Children do have a say in where they go in a foster home its the same with be it in a same sex or traditional marriage. Also you fail to see that to adopt there is a vetting process where the authorities look severly into all aspects of the couple financially, socially, lovingly provide for the child.
They cant just have their own kids there is no guarantee in IVF will work same as heterosexuals.
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh they do need to improve their image, and make the sterotype one of "gays make better parents then heteros" if they want to adopt. i dont stereotype gays and have a family member that is gay so try again with me stereotyping them.
can you honestly tell me your decision making skills were peaked out at age 8? kids cant make a descision like that. they dont know enough.
and what if they make a mistake, a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy.
MsReefmaster 8 months ago
@MsReefmaster OKAY you have a gay family member but still generalize that "a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy". Since when do gays have to prove they are better parents? I think I can smell bullshit on your part here. You are anti gay with a comment like that
seonidh 8 months ago
@seonidh wouldnt it be easier for them to adopt if they were proven better parents? and they do have to prove this because so many people dont want or dont think they should adopt. have your own or non at all. i have 1 gay friend to. so keep on telling me how anti gay i am. i dont care what gays do when they do it in privacy. i get annoyed at pride marches too and wish they would stop but not enough to protest them and i wouldnt stop them or arrest them. this has always been about kids for me.
MsReefmaster 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsReefmaster having a gay friend does not entitle you to state "what if they make a mistake, a lot of gays prey on children cause they dont talk just google priest molests boy" regardless if you know gay people you do not have the right to state that a lot of gays are paedos. Thats sick!
seonidh 8 months ago
@MsReefmaster - wow. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper. Does your "claimed" gay relative even speak to you? Citing the Catholic priesthood wasn't very persuasive. Yeah, given their requirements, you're probably going to find some (very conflicted) gay Catholic priests. But, hmmm - let's contrast that with the straight Protestant male Christian youth counselors that are diddling little girls. Or the straight female teachers that are jumping their teenage male students. Please.
47f0 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster So...you'd rather have a dad not be able to provide for you, and is drunk most of the time, than two loving fathers? See, we have to allow gay marriage to STOP the prejudice and the embarrassment. You're also being very biased. What if they don't want to have kids? What if the kids DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
shortazn97 6 months ago
@shortazn97 honestly yes i would rather have a drunk dad than two fathers. im not backing away from that. and theres another issue that can come up. some step parents fuck their kids. and with gays there will always be 1 or more likely 2 step parents double the chances of this. and there will be no biological desire to protect a child that isnt theirs.
and what if the kids DO give a fuck? what if they WILL give a fuck? make the adoption age 15 for gays to ensure their childeren know 4sure.
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster Wow...why don't you try talking to kids who have incompetent parents first? Their lives are miserable. The people who SHOULD love them, DON'T. And they're straight.
There's a reason the couple would adopt the kid, soo they're actually more likely to CARE about the child, rather than fuck them like a parent who treats them like shit, because they married for the money. I'd rather have two moms :P
If the kids don't like it, they'll complain, like in a straight marriage.
shortazn97 6 months ago
@shortazn97 youre probably not straight so i dont think youre the best person to ask if they would want same sex parents. ive stated i am straight and would rather have a lone deadbeat dad than two moms/dads. and whats more i dont hate gays and am not opposed whatsoever to gay marriage.
kids cant make that choice and ill give you that i do believe some gay parents would be much better than straight but the kids might still resent it once theyre teased in school about it.
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster 1. I know plenty of straight people that are fine with it 2. Half-straight(:
Having a deadbeat dad is auto-resentment. Two open-minded people that care are so much better.
We have to make changes happen for more people to be accepting about it. Like interracial marriages, which were frowned upon as 'weird' but now it's perfectly ok.
shortazn97 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster youre looking at things from how the gays would like it. im more looking at it from a childs perspective. and im very greatful i had a mom and dad growing up when i put myself in that situation. and can you GUARANTEE that none of these childeren will be molested by their adoptive parents? that they wouldnt pressure their children to be gay? it would be damning if a grown man of two fathers comes forward one day retelling how he was raped by both dads. google bigger brother molestin
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster Why would a gay couple pressure their child to be gay? They've obviously felt the pressure of prejudice, and coming out or not, and would not wish that upon anyone else, and probably have had many moments wishing they weren't gay themselves.
Also, imagine you had an interracial family. You want to make change and make people accept it, not hide like some coward and let them take your rights and your happiness.
Doubt they would abuse their kid. Too fabulous *joke*
shortazn97 6 months ago
@shortazn97 so no gay person has every sexually abused a child? adoptive straight parents sometimes do.
there is no comparison between an interracial family and gay family unless the interracial couple is gay. that has nothing to do with my opposition to gay adoption. the kids the kids the kids thats all this is about. all you seem to imagine is the best case scenario. i can admit it would happen there are excellent gay couples out there. but the worst case scenario means trouble for all gays
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster Which is why there should be no difference between between these couples. The comparison is the prejudice that each face when wanting equal rights, and the community looked down upon these marriages, but the interracial marriage pulled through, so I think gay marriage should too.
You can't look at all the risks and run away. These people are taking the risk by simply being gay. I'm pretty sure actually being gay is worse than being adopted by one. The kid can learn to be better.
shortazn97 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster - "the kids the kids the kids" will only have trouble when they encounter bigots like you. Seriously. I don't doubt your concern. You know how much venom you would inflict on these kids. Fortunately, not everyone is as hateful as you, and having two loving parents, even of the same gender, makes up for a whale of a lot of the kind of bile you spew. There will be bad gay parents. There will be bad straight parents. But, there's nothing to indicate that straight is magically better.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 man shut up. would gays not pressure striaght kids to be gay? straights do it. are gays morally superior somehow? would gays never sexually or emotionally abuse their kids? straights do. and its much worse for a straight child to be abused by a gay one ... or two. and you think gays are hated now just wait untill 20 stories of "my two dads raped me all my life" get out. you havent a thought in your head, and now i hope you do get what you want and all the consequences it brings.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - Yet in spite of all the "straight pressure" we end up with gay kids. Never thought about that? Some kids will be harmed by their parents, adoptive, natural, step or otherwise. You have yet to present the slightest molecule of actual evidence that kids of gay parents are more at risk, other than your bigotry. So your best, and only argument so far is "man shut up". Hardly persuasive. My sons are straight, as am I, but I'd rather they be flaming drag queens than regressive bigots.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 yeah but i doubt any of those kids are abused by their parents showing them "how it should be done" and "try doing it this way" youre straight and support gays that seems to be all we have in common. youre calling on the thunder and you bet your ass gays will reap the whirlwind. your insults mean nothing to me but i do enjoy counter insults. youre a moron, you were born one and youll die one, you see a straight path with no consequences. tell me have you imagined a worse case scenario?
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - Sorry, but you'd be wrong. My ex-wife was a reporter with the court beat, and trust, grooming is grooming, straight or gay. She brought home some real horror stories, and the majority of them were straight adults preying on children. Again, I may be a moron, but you still have cited absolutely zero evidence, other than your bigotry, that gay parents are any worse (or better, for that matter) than straight parents. Your only argument is your prejudice - and that's not evidence.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 so we should all take the advice on marriage and raising kids from the divorced dude? a tempting proposition. if you want examples of adult gays molesting childeren just google big brother , priest molestation cases. many of these cases are seemingly normal well adjusted adults doing predatory homosexual attacks on children. as far as married gay couples molesting their kids i dont know of any because i dont know of any gay couples adopting. if i did im sure that figure would change.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - Yep, she divorced me. She also heard voices that told her that I, her children and her mom were trying to kill her. You try keeping that relationship working. Again, some anecdotes aren't a legitimate study, and again, you consistently fail to provide any evidence that gay parents are intrinsically worse parents. I mean, any other evidence than your own bigotry, and ad hominem "oooh, he's divorced" non-arguments. "You're sure" - how, precisely?
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 hows this for an argument males are more likely to sexually abuse their children than women. esspecially step fathers (which are straight) with their step daughters. now instead put two men in that role. both have no genetic relation and have a young son the sexual orientation they choose to pursue. men do have stronger sex drives than women im assuming being gay doesnt change this. and also how do you marry someone that hears voices and not know it? or did you just think "no big deal"?
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - hmm - judging from the frequency of female teachers jumping their students in the news these days, I'm not so sure the myth of the male as the sole sexual aggressor holds water. But I guess, since you've decided that only men have any sexual proclivity for kids, that you are totally fine with lesbian moms. Good for you. That's at least a start. BTW, you still haven't offered any evidence other than your bigoted theories.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 actually i have you just chose to ignore it. i cant give examples of gay couples abusing their adopted childeren because as far as i know they cant do that. and i never said women arent sexually agressive too its just far less common... and rape done by a female against a male is... unheard of so im assuming theyre welcome sexual advances. what evidence do you have that gays wont abuse their children?
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - HUH? Is that how rights work these days? What evidence do you have that someone won't use a car to rob a bank, so we shouldn't let people have cars? Seriously, I'm deeply curious as to the lead paint content in your nursery when you were young. We do not, in this country at least, make a habit of denying people rights because somewhere, somehow, someone might, maybe, possibly, hypothetically do something wrong.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 lol you havent a thought in your head. ive given possible scenarios, ive given evidence that straights do pressure gay children to be straight, i given evidence that step parents are far more likely to abuse their children, and more, and you cant even give me any evidence that gays wont abuse their kids? i can give you evidence that they will and i have. google big brother molestation again you clearly didnt do it the first time. or priest molestation. youre a fucken idiot.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - I wonder who hasn't a thought in their head. Do we take away everyone's rights because of what a few individuals might do? Take away your right to own a dog, because someone else MIGHT be an irresponsible pet owner? What a grotesque, Orwellian nightmare of a society that would be.
.
Again, the only "evidence" you have provided is your own fevered and bigoted imaginings. You argue that straights pressure gay kids is "evidence" - of what- that straights shouldn't have kids?
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 lol you keep calling me bigoted and yet i havent said anything against gays not once. ive never said gays are unable to raise children, or that theyre unnatural. unlike you i can think and do.
would you allow children to own guns? why not? because of what might happen? do you have strong evidence that children with guns would be a bad thing? they could be educated and defend themselves from pedophiles. i stand by what ive said about gay adoption and you personally. reap what you sow.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - uhmm, yeah. You're not bigoted against gays at all. And David Duke swears he's not really bigoted against blacks. They're just inferior, that's all. As a matter of fact, we have excellent evidence that children and firearms are a bad idea. As it turns out, the CDC keeps very good numbers on a very bad problem. Again - actual evidence as opposed to bigoted conjecture - children are factually, demonstrably less safe with access to guns.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 have you ever met a kid that owns a gun? sure theres probably thousands of incedents you can list where they did shoot or kill themselves or friends ect *cough big brother cough priest molestations cough imam molestations and many unreported incidences*. youre acting like kids cant make their own choice in such an inportant decision and adults should make it for them because they dont understand any possible consequences. you only see straight forward black and white and see no pitfalls.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - I grew up in Texas. I WAS a kid who owned a gun. Oddly enough, yeah, we do make decisions for kids that they aren't mature enough to make. Something gay parents can do as well as straight parents.
.
BTW - lovely item in the news about a straight, Christian couple who beat two of their adopted daughters to a pulp, killing one. So I guess you'll be banning straight couples adopting now?.
.
We do not remove rights from people because of what might happen - or what someone else did.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 well see about that beating their daughers to death which i knew about is that something that a gay couple would be incapable of? that isnt an argument for your cause. some straight couples do some horrific things. and i dont doubt that gay couples would do horrific things too. again one of my major points is the backlash for gays after such an incedent would be something to fear. can you not get that?
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - I see. So, with zero evidence that gay parents are any worse, you'll deny all of them their rights "to protect them from backlash". How very paternalistic of you. Yet you think it's wrong to ban straight parents from adopting because of these straight Christian cretins who murdered their adopted daughter.
.
Tell me - do you ever get headaches from tying your cerebellum in knots like that?
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 also as a one time kid myself im glad that i had my mom and dad raise me and not a gay couple. and i dont think im in the minority thinking that. and i doubt future generations will have proportionally different veiws. so are we now to cater to a minority groups in spite of how everyone else feels? again your glaring thoughtlessness shows like our star. you dont or cant see a big picture and future consequences your marriage history will attest to that.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - the big picture is called the Constitution, and it promises equality from the government. That same Constitution insures that a majority of bigots and idiots can't deny the rights of a minority. That's why women can vote, we don't have slaves, minorities can vote, and interracial couples can marry. That's why we do not have a democracy, which is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Re: my marriage - you try making it work with a schizophrenic - or maybe you are?
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 you know that same constitution allows for everyone to own a gun as well. but common sense stops society from activly enforcing that. thats what you lack. common sense, empathy, i could go on but ive insulted you enough your arguments are poor and im starting to think you might just be debating this in some desperate attempt at human contact.
MsReefmaster 5 months ago
@MsReefmaster - Sigh. If I were desperate for human contact, trust, I would not be having a dialogue with Archie Bunker. What I AM desperate for is to live in a country where all citizens have the same rights, unabridged by bigotry and ignorance. I don't doubt there would be a backlash if there were an incident involving gay parents - and you'd be at the head of the lynch mob of village idiots with your pitchfork and torch.
47f0 5 months ago 2
@shortazn97 and you know what i know some gay couples WOULD put pressure on their kids to be gay just as a straight parent pressures their gay childeren to be straight. how can you not see that? ive met pushy gay people that think im afraid to come out just because im okay with hanging around them. stop thinking best case scenario im not arguing that it cant happen. im arguing that it wont always happen and i wouldnt want to be someone who signed on for gay marriage after a bunch of sexual abuse
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster Uh, it 1. probably has to do with your attitude, you like gays, but you basically oppose these rights to adopt 2. It's a joke. I make it all the time.
And you need to stop looking at the worst case, because you've basically turned down a bunch of people's rights based on risk. You can't run away from just risk.
But you should ban straight marriages because most of those are 'false' marriages that have no love, and the risk is even higher.
shortazn97 6 months ago
@shortazn97 no convincing you i can see and you havent pursuaded me even a little. good luck convincing someone that doesnt like gays. i think its common sense to run from unacceptable risks, and in my opinion gay adoption is one such risk. i wouldnt protest a movement for gay adoption beyond a few text messages like this online if an actual law was instated. and i wouldnt bother reporting poor gay couples. but im not everyone and i dont approve and i dont think i ever will.
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster If we don't try, then what's the point? And if we always run away, how would we ever get to our goals? The biggest regrets are the risks we didn't take.
I mean, the cliche "I'd risk anything" ? That ring a bell?
You want to get to point C. You've made it to point B so far, but you get scared and run back to point A. So, what's the point in the false sense of safety if it doesn't go toward anything?
shortazn97 6 months ago
@shortazn97 that comment was worthy of a response. you might one day acheive your goals. and you did convince me a little that it might actually be benificial one day. but maybe youre asking for too much too fast. when things are rushed mistakes happen. keep fighting for what you believe by all means but my dire hypotheticals are more of a deterrent than your perfect hypotheticals so i wont support it till i see real evidence. youll have to find a way besides "just let us show you" u need anothe
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster But the thing is, history has already shown us the the underdog couple can become integrated into society and be accepted.
I really hope you can be able to see that someday, but if not, have a nice day (night?)
shortazn97 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster - ah. So the straight stepdaddies, foster dads, or adoptive dads molesting their little girls are fine. No? That's not what you said? Actually, it kind of is. Gay does not equal molestation, but you seem to think it does. Sexuality regarding children is not, repeat, not the same as sexuality towards adults, straight or gay. Please provide actual evidence that children of gay parents are at more risk of inappropriate contact from the parents. BTW - your bigotry is not evidence.
47f0 5 months ago
im saying this more for the kids but it might end up saving a lot of gay lives in the future too. you have an image very easily tarnished. if such an incedent were to happen you can bet gays would be targeted and killed. their childeren (in my scenario some would) removed their assets seized. you cannot speak for everyone that is gay promising not to abuse children. be careful what you wish for what you get might have dire consequences. what u want might not be what the kids want.
MsReefmaster 6 months ago
@MsReefmaster - Wow. Maybe if we worked on educating bigots like you, then being a child of gay parents would not be so traumatic. Talk about weak arguments. You project your bigotry on everyone else, therefore a drunk welfare dad must be more acceptable than a loving gay or lesbian couple. Absolutely mind-blowing. You claim you're fine with gays, but I haven't seen a single thing in your posts that would suggest that. Maybe white trailer-trash straight couples should "improve their image". Geez
47f0 5 months ago
You are a animal a smart animal. many smart animals have sex just to have it, like dolphins and chimps. Not all sex is to reproduce.
Muffinsable 10 months ago 9
@Muffinsable an animal, not a animal...
strickerman101 6 months ago
@Muffinsable No, sex is only for reproduction. Beings misuse it for personal uses.
DannyBISFAJohnson 5 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Bigotry is based on ignorance and lies actually. As to the rest of what you said, it is more lies.
Farewell
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Here you go "I don't dislike black people, they just don't have any principles, what they are doing just doesn't work"
Instead of wanting to impose your views of what a sex life should be, why don't you accept people should be able to make their own choices and your accusations are ignorant and altogether boring.
The religious think they have god on their side, they think it makes them righteous, it just makes them delusional and bigoted. You are despicable :)
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
I am sorry you aren't competent enough to realise I am trying to end the "debate".
I did counter. You ignored most of what I said including quite a few questions.
I fail to see how it is childish to call someone out on their bigotry.
Be gone little bigot :)
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
They aren't harming anyone.
You are.
Scum.
I don't need marriage. Nor do I want it.
I would at this time ask you to stay away from me. Your bigotry disgusts me. I can't believe you would actually compare a loving relationship to potential death. Pathetic, the lengths bigots will go to try to justify the fact they are prejudiced is just amazing.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Marriage as an insitutation is based on women in the submissive role and men in the dominant role. It also excludes homosexuals.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Assuming evolution is completely wrong for the sake of argument. That does not mean spirituality has anything to do with it. You religious people create false dichotomies.
I don't like bigots. I don't much feel the need to debate with them.
You think people should deny their sexual orientation because you don't like it. This causes higher rates of depression in gay people and ultimately results in higher rates of suicide as well. How immoral.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
I think you need to read about evolution. That would be more informative then I.
I never claimed you didn't like gay people. I claimed you were anti-gay, which you are.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
If higher level of consciousness helps humans survive then yes, evolution can explain how it came about.
I don't like you because you are an anti-gay bigot
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Depends what you mean by explain. It is perfectly plausible for humans to have evolved to have a higher level of consciousness.
There isn't really an answer you can give to my response unless you can present some evidence of a spiritual world. I will not find it compelling.
We have a brain, our consciousness comes from our brain, this we can prove. No spirituality necessary.
I also find you to be an immoral person and do not like you.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
There is nothing to even suggest something spiritual exists.
At this point you are talking rubbish at me.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
no it doesn't
It is perfectly consistent with evolution.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
We have a higher level of consciousness...
I am not sure what you don't understand.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
consciousness.
I just explained
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Why can cheetahs run real fast?
Was obviously helpful for survival.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Research about rats. They display empathy for each other. Why is it weird that humans do?
Many animals have empathy for those within the group. It sure helps in species where individual survival is dependant on group survival...such as humans.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
humans have a higher level of consciousness.
evolution doesn't have to answer where a conscience came from, evolution describes speciation.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
I don't believe in god. That argument is not going to convince me and my arguments against it are obvious :)
One can judge what is good and bad by the harm it causes we do not need a god to decide.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Why does something have to serve a good purpose though?
I like to play video games, is that immoral cos it doesn't serve a good purpose?
In terms of sexual desires, if I masturbate am I immoral because it doesn't serve a good purpose?
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
You are stating heterosexuality is morally correct because it is natural. Then you state that one cannot judge what is moral on what is natural.
You don't see a contradiction here?
Homosexuality can be useful in the animal kingdom and possibily in the past of humanity. At the current time it is neither harmful or helpful to our reproductive abilities.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Btw you are proving my point.
Your claim is now that homosexuality is wrong as it is unnatural ( I do not agree) thereby implying that what is natural is what is moral and desirable. In this case heterosexuality.
You are using the same logic you dismiss as ridiculous.
It is kind of strange...
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
Please provide your definition of natural. Or we cannot discuss it.
I agree they did. However this is not the same as stating it is moral because it is natural which is your claim.
As it does not cause harm. Yes you need to provide proof of why it is wrong.
My genitals were made to pop out babies, however at the current time I do not use them to do so, and probably never will. Does this make it wrong?
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
There are two positions one takes in any argument. The first is ones own view of the issue in question. The second is the refuting process of the opposing claims.
In this case gay lib is responding to a claim that homosexuality is unnatural by pointing out it occurs in nature.
Your claim that they are asserting this makes it moral comes from a failure to understand the argument process.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
How would you define what is natural then?
Again please link me to the source of your information that says gay rights activists say homosexuality is natural "cos a dog does it".
I am asking for any that say it.
What question did you ask?
The way I look at it, those opposing a certain behaviour have to prove it is "wrong". Not vice versa. How is homosexuality wrong?
angeltears87 11 months ago
@bloodngutspatriot
No you do not understand what the gay rights activists are saying at all. When gay rights activists say it is not "unnatural" this is a response to the statement from the religious right that it is unnatural.
Please point me to where in the gay lib movement they say all natural things are moral and desirable.
That is actually what the right is saying by stating it is unnatural and therefore undesirable.
It is just bigotry and bible thumping.
angeltears87 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gee, no - I would have never guessed that. But then again, you only support my argument with this point . Consider, given the proclivity of a rather sizable section of the population to opt for the marital alternative of polygamy why does the state [legally] outlaw that configuration if, in fact, one definition/form of marriage is as equal as another ? Could it be (as I've argued) because the state has determined from its protracted experience sit's not beneficial. UR argument is deficient
shieldsff 1 year ago
just cause animals do it doesnt make it natural lol animals attack ppl too..is that natural? NO! homosexuality IS unnatural DUH! come on use ur brains that what theyre there for! why do u think women were made with vaginas and men were made with dicks? cause we were MADE FOR EACH OTHER! why r ppl so dumb? and aids affects gays cause studies show theyre more sexually active and more sexually experimental that heterosexuals! not a coincidence! theyre nasty!
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020 I think YOU'RE then one who needs to use their brain. :/ Why the fuck do you think animals attack people? Territorial disputes, hunger, defense, INSTINCT. A bear will gladly attack a human if it means protecting her cubs. It's been documented, hundreds of thousands of times, as well as other NATURAL happenings in which a human was attacked by another animal. What the hell kind of an argument is that?
CandiedSnails 1 year ago
@nikitty020
"we were made for each other" that argument only works if you are religious. which I am assuming you are. So I will point you to the theory of evolution to prove this wrong. Enjoy.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 no it makes sense if u use common sense. i didnt use any religion in my short explaination and it still makes sense. evolution? lol so u came from a chimp? good luck trying to prove that!
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020
Only religion states people were "made" at all.
No. Humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
Look in the fossil record.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 so because we share similarities we came from them? we share similarities with many animals does that mean we came from cats and dogs as well? and all i know is i'm not ancestor of primates. no amount of science can prove that.
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020
no because we can look step by step at how animals have evolved.
No all animals that exist at the moment are equally evolved. We do however share common ancestors with them all including cats and dogs. We are just closer in the evolutionary tree to other primates.
"All i know is I'm not an ancestor of primates"
correct. Other primates are your ancestors.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 I don't believe in religion and I would make that argument! Survival of the fittest is through breeding. It is the natural method to evolve. Now in the future you may be able to manufacture babies, but that is what we'll call the abnormal method. I've no issue with Gay marrying each other, just don't shove it down our throat that it is normal and natural. What you do in your bedroom and relation is your choice, but don't bend the facts to suit your decision.
silentwhisper2009 11 months ago
@silentwhisper2009
It is normal and natural.
Stop shoving your heterosexuality down my throat as normal and natural.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 I'm stating the fact and correcting your errors. We need heterosexuality for our species to survive thus it will always be the norm. Anything outside of it as abnormal.
silentwhisper2009 11 months ago
@silentwhisper2009
you are stating myth actually.
In the animal kingdom, bisexuality (homosexual and heterosexual encounters) aids reproduction by keeping the group together.
Read something instead of making up crap to suit your bigotry.
How reactionary you are.
angeltears87 11 months ago
@angeltears87 We've talked about that before. We all know homosexual activities exist in the animal kingdom. Have proof of productive homosexual in animals? I've never read heard of reproduction through homosexuality. Yet, just saying it occurs means NOT it is normal behavior especially in a more intelligent society that understands what is required to survive as a species. Just like I'd not consider oral sex / anal sex as normal. They're sexual acts that ppl are free to try. But they aint norm
silentwhisper2009 11 months ago
@silentwhisper2009
The idea is that homosexuality encourages reproduction by keeping the group together.
The technology exists for homosexual couples ot have children.
There is also the choice for heterosexuals and homosexuals to not reproduce if they choose to.
What does the norm have to do with it?
Your use of the word "try" is extremely ignorant.
angeltears87 11 months ago
so, no one wants to force churches to give gay marriages, there are plenty of open minded real Christian churches around who would. Sorry about the three post, my cell's acting up.
ThnksFrThEmo 1 year ago
g up holy matrimony, a religious sacrament, and marriage, a legal contract. Al
ThnksFrThEmo 1 year ago
@iBSeannn Why do you not get that a very large number of rights go along with the legal contract of marriage that the gay communiy should be able to have as well. Also, you're mixin
ThnksFrThEmo 1 year ago
you know whats not natural, religion. i mean if it was we would be born already knowing and believing in god. but we are not, we have to be taught god by our parents and churches, inst that why we have sunday school?
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
@AceofDiamonds0 And why does god make atheists if he exists?
Darius135gease 6 months ago
why do atheist in a vast majority the ones who support gay marriage . is it because it is a useful weapon in the hateful fight against religion .
WakkoXtreme 1 year ago
conclusion: catholic religion (marriage) forbids homosexual practices therefor it is an breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) to 'legally' allow marriage (in a church, done by a priest) between homosexuals.
iBSeannn 1 year ago
argument 1: gays cannot conceive children together, the religious sacrament of marriage, (thats when 2 humans are joined in a religious celebration because of their love for eachother) is to conceive children, therefor there should be no need or desire from the gay community to be allowed to marry. also, people do not need a legal document to prove their love for one another.
iBSeannn 1 year ago
@iBSeannn
1. obviously you've never hear of in vitro fertilization or adoption. and sense when do you have to be married to have kids?
2. so because it is a religious celebration should atheists not be allowed to marry?
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
@AceofDiamonds0 marriage DID come from the bible but athiests are allowed to marry because marriage doesnt require u to be religious. it just requires that it is between a man and a woman. this is why only the one who defined marriage(GOD) should be able to say who can marry and who cant. thats why theres no such thing as gay "marriage," its an illusion of marriage. God would NEVER join such a "union."
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020
ya, like the definition of marriage hasnt been changed before. (watch?v=ASsJQY5jgmk) i mean there has to be one christian who remembers or can open a history book and see that god and the bible were once used to deny interracial marriage. but just like that soon christians will 'forget' that they were ever against gay marriage.
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
@nikitty020
Sorry marriage has been around longer then the bible. Read some history with the evolution text books
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 sorry that evolution crap is flawed. the ppl that wrote those books seem to act like they know everything that happened years before ppl were even created but they dont. all i'd be reading is theories from ppl who refuse to admit they really dont have the slightest clue what happened before their time. marriage came from the bible thats why the ppl who made the law define marriage as between man and woman. they were christians who got it straight from the bible.
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020
Yes christians got marriage from the bible, but prior to the bible and christians other people got married.
A theory in science refers to a proven fact. It does not mean an idea, or a thought like in every day language.
I am sorry that you deny reality and facts, but the fact you do so has no reflection on the veracity of the claims.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 no one really know exactly when the bible was written so how would one know what happened before then?
if a theory in science was a fact then 80% wouldnt choose religion over evolution if it were a fact.
nikitty020 1 year ago
@nikitty020
We know within a decade or so.
Marriage was around for hundreds if not thousands of years.
"if a theory in science was a fact then 80% wouldnt choose religion over evolution if it were a fact."
This statement makes no sense.
However in science a theory is a fact. It starts off as hypothesis and then when there is a lot of evidence to support it then it is known as a theory.
80% don't choose religion over evolution. Many people follow their religion and accept evolution.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@iBSeannn 3. kind of true thy do not need a legal document to prove their love. however, saying gay couples cannot have kids so they shouldnt get married is idiotic. what about straight couples who get married but do not want kids should they be denied a marriage? what about elderly couples that get married?
and by denying gay couples the right to marry is like saying heterosexual marriage is better than homosexual marriage, in your opinion maybe, but not everyone thinks that way.
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AceofDiamonds0 "what about straight couples who get married but do not want kids should they be denied a marriage? " u didnt even understand what they said. theyre saying gays r defling themselves trying to mix sexes that obviously dont work since their unnatural sex practice doesnt allow them to bare children. heteros have already shown their relationship is natural by populating the world. everyone knows they r natural thats why theyre accepted and homos arent.
nikitty020 1 year ago
@iBSeannn and if marriage was about procreation, then no one would have children out of marriage, and procreation would be a requirement to get married
idaman12345 1 year ago
I burn everyday, phantomzassassin, as I live near the USA/Mexico border. It appears that not only are you are unable to spell PHANTOMS correctly, but also it is apparent you are unable to think of a cogent counterargument to what I posted. Still, I am grateful that most people seem to have liked my comment so far, since it is one of the highest rated ones.
j4unumber1 1 year ago
@j4unumber1 ok first of i put that since i relised i had not used that term in over a year, and was in fact implying that you burnt (owned) christians there is no need to be a dick about it. although i do see how it could be confusing if one has not herd that term used to describe the owning of a person due to social differances. i am in fact a proud athiest and anti-thiest XD
phantomzassassin 1 year ago
Yeah there is homosexuality in animals, but I define unnatural by the six characteristics of a living organism; one of which is reproduction. Mose studies on animal sexuality will say that it is based on dominance, playful behavior, aggression, etc. Not to mention that homosexuality in an animal context is a horrible analog to how we humans view and discuss homosexuality. What's "ridicules" is your logic.
skippy563 1 year ago
@skippy563
It has also been shown that homosexuality in animals (and in the origins of humanity) to protect reproduction. It does this by keeping a group of females together and harmonious so the male can spread his seed. For example lions.
Also it is a rebuttal. We are not saying homosexuality is right because it is in nature, we are saying it isn't wrong based on an unnatural argument, due to it existing in nature.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 Perhaps I am missing something but I don't see how your analogy of lions demonstrates homosexuality with animals. It would seem to me that it would demonstrate polygamy with animals. I just don't think that using animals to show that homosexuality is natural is a good argument considering that whatever might be seen as homosexuality in animals is so far distant from what the discussion is really about with humans and homosexuality.
skippy563 1 year ago
@skippy563
Two points to make here.
1) something can be both polygamous and homosexual (such as with the lions)
2) There are two parts of a debate, the arguments and the rebuttals. I am not saying homosexual marriage should be allowed because it is natural I am just rebutting the conservative claim that it is unnatural, so a ban on homosexual marriage under the claim it is unnatural does not work, because it isn't true.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@skippy563
I initially missed a point you made here. That compariing homosexuality in animals to homosexuality in humans is flawed.
1) Humans are animals
2) homosexuality in animals and in the origins of humanity has been shown to be optimal to heterosexual reproduction. So your comment that it is wrong on the basis it isn't helpful to reproduction is incorrect.
angeltears87 1 year ago
@angeltears87 Sadly youtube only provides us with 500 words to debate with, which isn't fitting for this topic. My point that I didn't get across was that homosexuality hasn't been given any premises that can draw a sound conclusion that it is natural. So my point was that the burden of proof was on homosexuality. But the lions argument could also open to a single mothers group. I just thought there were too many dissimilarities for it to be an effective analogy.
skippy563 1 year ago
@skippy563
Read a book called "An alternate appraoch to sexual behaviour"
It outlines why scientists do believe homosexuality is natural. There is more stuff also, if you look.
I don't see the issues with my analogy. A "single mothers group" where they lick each others genitals? I don't think so.
The book I referred you to discusses how homosexuality can be a way of ensuring "optimal heterosexual reproduction"
Where is your academic evidence it isn't natural?
angeltears87 1 year ago
@skippy563
Sorry that should be "alternative approaches to the study of sexual behaviour"
I read a lot :P
angeltears87 1 year ago
@skippy563
Sorry I don't mean to spam you or this video but I also had to point out that the burden of proof that homosexuality is unnatural is on those ooposing same-sex marriage. This is because they are using the argument to prevent gay marriage. The homosexual movement however is not stating that homosexuality should be allowed because it is natural, they are merely saying it shouldn't be disallowed on that basis
angeltears87 1 year ago
i agree with a lot of what these two are saying, but one logical falicy that came up one time too many is gays not being able to pass on their genes. homosexual=/=sterile!!!! gay people can, and do, have children of their own. and i'm not talking about gay people who were once part of a hetero relationship, i'm talking about the countless gay and lesbian couples who choose to start a genetic family together. i'll state it again; homosexual=/=sterile! fact.
h6hfelie 1 year ago
evolution totally has a goal... survival, projections for reproduction of a species
Well, i would have to agree that it is not normal in evolution, there is no clear reason for it to happen. But as they say, i could... overpopulation. i don't know... but it happens, so just live with it and don't take rights away from people
saprissa18 1 year ago
I find it very sad that I have to look outside my own religion to find people whom I agree with.
Novetrix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
aaulabi 1 year ago
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
aaulabi 1 year ago
@aaulabi He answers your point at 0:26. It is natural because it occurs in nature, whether or not you find it desirable is irrelevant. Also we are ALL animals, I don't consider my self superior just because I am a human. By the way unless a person is vegan we do in a sense hunt for pray via the farming industry....so i think their logic is pretty durn amazing. (my opinion:))
brpowerful 1 year ago
Wow, this is an insult for human beings. We are comparing human to other creatures. So if it's natural in some species, then it's natural for us to be like that. So if a lion hunt for a pray, a human need to hunt for a pray... that is natural... hmmm amazing logic
aaulabi 1 year ago
'Traditional marriage", from a global standpoint, is NOT one man one woman. In fact, one man many wives was the standard. Indeed, the more wives a man had the more respected he was in the community - including what is known as biblical lands. Also, traditional marriage tended to be arranged ones. Now is there any person living in the USA willing to reasonably argue that marriages should be chosen by family members instead of himself? Didn't think so...
j4unumber1 1 year ago 10
@j4unumber1 burn
phantomzassassin 1 year ago
All you got to say for yourself is "burn"? Dude I burn everyday! I live on the USA/ Mexico border. This part of the world is one of the most hot places on Earth too. In the summertime, it can be in triple digits at night on occasion.
Burn... Is that all you have to say? You simply are unable to come up with a cogent counterargument to what I said.
j4unumber1 1 year ago
Definitions always change. by the classical definition of atheism, christians were atheists alongside jews and the others that didnt believe in the greek gods. As the lack of belief in the gods meant that the gods were referring to Zeus, Poseidon, etc...
Eventually the term became "the lack of belief in ANY gods".
The definitions change all the time indeed
abdishtar 1 year ago
Dictionary definitions ought naught control our lives. We in our own actions ought dictate what definitions control our lexicons. Copy a dictionary folks for the truth is just sitting there in perfect juxtaposition. Seriously don't sleep on this one life, one time chance to truly get your god. God is word and word is God. Why not take it in without all the praying and highfalutin kowtowing ways of the old. Praise god like never before folks. Get that PHREESMART that FreeDUMB keeps denying you.
combustible420 1 year ago
Copy a dictionary, and become ambidextrous. The wholeness of life is situated within our minds, hands, and in the moment. They say that the right hand is syncing you to the LEFT hemisphere of your brain, while the left hand syncs you to the RIGHT half. Seriously think about it, ambidexterity will, I repeat will, make you see clarity. And GOD is word and WORD is goD. So I mean who wants in on the full. Ego death included. Jump on it while this life is sitting in its existence. One life to life!?$
combustible420 1 year ago
I'd say something more to support your third argument.
Some species go even beyond human sexual possibilities. In nature we can not only find homosexuality, but also hermaphrodites or asexual creatures which reproduce themselves without sexual intercourse (plants, snails, etc)
Human sexual diversity fits perfectly in nature. That's actually the natural order.
:)
SpanishHunkyGuy 1 year ago 2
The gay=not normal argument is also irrelevant to a marriage contract. Homosexuality is legal in the U.S., so whether you believe it to be "normal" or not has nothing to do with the fact that gay people exist in the U.S. and need to be protected in their unions just like "normal" straight people do. Either they deserve the same benefit/protection as other legal citizens or you give them a tax cut for being gay (since they're not full citizens apparently).
adean2 2 years ago 2
"And they're weird, cuz they have to use special scissors. *Sits back down and grins*"
xD
wetterdew 2 years ago
I've nothing against gay people, but from a society building block (evolutionary), this should not be encourage. My issue with gay pride is the encouragement of being gay as a reflection of openness. Being gay is abnormal since the organs used in the sexual acts are not intended for these purposes. Furthermore, I've no objection to two ppl same-sex living together as long as no sex is involved. But to teach children that misuse of our body parts is "OK" or natural is a deception of the truth.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009 So you are against handjobs and blowjobs too? So if a chick wanted to suck your cock, you wouldn't let her because it's a "misuse of our body parts".
LiNaK37 2 years ago
You got me wrong. I would not go about promoting hand-jobs/blow-jobs or anal as a healthy alternative life style. For the point, sure hand-jobs and blow-jobs are not natural use of body part. I won't teach kids in school that blowing your partner is normal sexual practice
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009 But if somebody else wants to do this, it may not be an intented use of that body part, but it is their body and they may do what they want with their property.
LiNaK37 2 years ago
@LiNaK37: sure, they're free to do whatever they want to their body. Should they be allowed to dictate to society that this is a healthy alternative? Should we teach our children to use Marijuana or Cocaine as alternative lifestyle?
I'm all for help to those with gay syndromes (born gay with sexual organs). But I'm against supporting those who choose to abuse their body. They should be allowed to do it, but not allowed to make it seem the norm.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009 I'm all for Marijuana use, but that's besides the point. What about gay sex abuses your body?
LiNaK37 2 years ago
@LiNaK37: but would you want kids to be taught in schools that smoking marijuana is normal if you feel like it? As for gay-sex, do u not agree that anal sex is a misuse of body function? It is even very harmful if not protected or lubricated..
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009: Heterosexuals experiment with anal sex all the time, some like it so much that they do it almost as often as regular sex. Some homosexuals will never have anal sex, some will do it often. Any kind of sex can be harmful if you're not prepared.
If your weed point is that schools shouldn't teach what you don't believe is right, talk to your children about your thoughts on the matter. Smoking pot and who you fall in love with aren't even on the same level, one isn't a choice.
RaptorClaws24 2 years ago
@RaptorClaws24: I'm talking about society, where do you draw the line? If we are to allow abnormal things to be taught in our school as normal (e.g. being gay), and we allow kissing in public, then we allow gay kissing, we allow topless women then where do you draw the line? Why isn't society going to eventually allow public sex? If two consenting adults want to have sex in public, why should we as a society oppose them?
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009: You think that letting kids know who they fall for may be a man or a woman depending on natural preference is akin to allowing nudity and public sex? You're using the 'slippery slope' to justify ignorance. The more a person understands something, the more they can sympathize with it and the better off we all are. Sex isn't something we show or talk to kids about until they are old enough to handle it. Gay marriage isn't about sex, it's about families of all kinds being ok.
RaptorClaws24 2 years ago
@RaptorClaws24 CONTD: Gays can do whatever they want in their bedroom. But in public, and within the public domain, we've to set the standards on what is best for continuing the building of our society. Since gay-sex is unnatural, there is no reason to teach it in classes or even project it as an acceptable practice to the public. Notice, I'm saying gays are still free to practice it and they've equal rights as partners, but do not have the right to dictate to society what is the norm.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper2009: Normal is incredibly subjective. Normal is what you are comfortable with and it varies from person to person. Just because you don't have gay sex doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's unnatural to *you*. However, not telling kids that some families do have two loving parents of the same sex is WRONG, because you may have a child who comes out as gay and then thinks they may never have a chance at having happiness and a family of their own.
RaptorClaws24 2 years ago
@RaptorClaws: Normal and Abnormal is what is dictated by nature as the mainstream. Based on your argument of subjectiveness, blind people are normal, so are those ppl into pee feitsh, and ppl who have sex with animals. Which means, you're willing to accept anything as normal and integrate it into society, which brings another important subject that Gay leads to more "Normal" things like polygamy, animal marriages and all sort of weird ideas. It is not natural to YOU, but normal to them.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
Blind people *are* normal, they have a disability but they aren't any less a person for it. Your animal nonsense is completely IGNORANT and PREJUDICE. Animals are not people, they don't give sexual consent! Children are incapable of giving consent as well due to severe emotional ramifications, therefor Gay people neither have sex with animals or kids. If people want plural marriages I'm not here to stop them, that's their thing, but I personally wouldn't. You are lacking common sense.
RaptorClaws24 2 years ago
@RaptorClaw: 1) Animals give consent in the way of allowing it to happen (unless it was forced entry - animal rape?!), u've never heard of a dog f@$cking a woman? How else would it occur if the dog did not voluntarily participate in it??
2) You're bringing the issue of consent on the basis of marriage, I'm talking about sexual behavior. I believe government have no place in marriage. They should only be issuing partnership certificates.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@RaptorClaw24: You have no place to object to a person who wishes to have a sexual relationship with an animal, do you?
Now, lets take this a step further and assume a small minority of people enjoy having sexual relationship with their dogs, do we categorize these as abnormal or normal? Should we state to our children: Zoophilia, another alternativey lifestyle that people should be accepted as normal.
How about Insect sex? Should we allow adult brother/sister to have sex, maybe "marry"?
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
My argument, outside of what is normal sexual behaviour for the purpose of re-production, what should we categorize as normal? Where do we draw the line?
Why should gay people get the special treatment than other "consenting" beings can draw upon? Father/Daughter, Brother/Sister, multiple wives marriages, multiple husbands marriages, if definition of marriage is partnership, there is nothing in it that says exclusive to two people. How about multiple partners marriages? y treat them any differ.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
neither do you, so why are you saying that gay isn't normal.
mistertinkleburg 2 years ago
@mistertinkleburg: What are you talking about? are you lame?
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
@silentwhisper: If any brother and sister wanted to marry, or a father and daughter wanted to marry, I'd be fine with that, as long as both parties were consenting. As well, I'd be okay with someone marrying multiple persons, as long as they were all okay with it. I also don't see why you care about being "normal." Asians are the most prominent race in the world, so are the other races people "not normal?" Should non-asians be shunned and frowned upon because they're "not normal?"
CommonIntellect 2 years ago
@CommonIntellect: Your argument about Asian is unrelated. We're talking about tangible abnormalities. Then, you've no problem teaching in our schools that a brother can marry a sister, and the kids can gangbang each other (once they reach the age of adultery), then marry each others and marry their siblings.
I'm ok with gay ppl getting together. I'm AGAINST presenting the situation as normal behavior.
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago
When did I say that we had to teach that in schools? And when did i say i was okay with kids gangbanging each other? and since when is adultery an age? all i said was that if a person wants to marry their sibling, and their sibling wants to marry them, i would be okay with it. and since when is polygamy "kids gangbanging each other and then marrying each other and their siblings?" and anyway, what is "normal behavior?" what i think you're saying is that its the majority, but please correct me.
CommonIntellect 2 years ago
Also, if "normal behavior" is the majority's behavior, then would you be against teaching that its okay to be vegetarian? and anyone, homosexuality is NOT "behavior," it's a sexual orientation. Saying that you're okay with gay couples, as long as it's not taught as normal behavior is like saying that you're okay letting black people live, as long as they are still looked on as worse than white people.
CommonIntellect 2 years ago
@Common: Normal is what is dictated by nature through evolutionary means and required to sustain our species development. Thus, gays & lesbians are not normal.
Vegetarians are normal since they don't contradict the statement above.
I'm open for fully consenting adults to do whatever they want. But I don't want that to be taught to our children as normal (definition above), nor being accepted as typical social behaviour
U still didn't answer, you want us to teach kids incest is good?
silentwhisper2009 2 years ago