Neverside

Look. Don't go in here and accusing us of being nazis, alright?

I didn't know the default position for a fetus is female, but what has that got to do with it?

Assuming someones religious beliefs is also pretty stupid mate. Please read the argument. I'll outline points I've already made:

- I am heterosexual
- I am not a homophobe
- I am FOR gay marriage

Now, READ MY FREAKIN' POSTS! I am NOT saying that gays will die because they are "less than 'us'" (you seem to be against people "deciding" what is normal, but you feel free to categorize a group called 'us'). I am saying that a society of homosexuals would collapse DUE TO THEIR INABILITY TO REPRODUCE. I'll give you a little (extremely) basic sex ed 101:

Penis goes in vagina
Ejaculation
Fertilisation
9 months later, here comes baby!

Now, compare that to homosexual sex. It doesn't work, and no baby comes about.

Now, saying that people are "hiding behind religious dogma" is yet another stupid point. I'm assuming you are talking about christians, and they believe "God's word" (to my understanding, I am not a christian). So if their God tells them that homosexuality is wrong, they will damn well believe it.

Saying that people are all the same can be filed under S, for stupid again:

If I line up with a black person, an asian person, and a midget, you will notice that we are NOT the same! Genetic differences ARE differences! I'm not saying that differences are bad, but you have to admit that they exist.

I eagerly await your rebuttal.

Originally posted by pingu:

I didn't know the default position for a fetus is female, but what has that got to do with it?

Think about it. Hormones are released to make the male. Is this process always the same for every single foetus? While not absolutely proven, this is one possible factor that contributes to the cause of homosexualilty.

Originally posted by pingu:

I am saying that a society of homosexuals would collapse DUE TO THEIR INABILITY TO REPRODUCE.

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproduction; their bodies are no different from heterosexuals'.

Nope.

If I have sex with a man, that bloke lacks the organs to make a baby from my sperm in his body. That's inability, isn't it?

the generalisations i made were just that, generalisations so that i didnt have to address each post one by one. its very vain to think they are all directed at you. And im not the one catagorising 'us'. For the people attacking gays and their lifestyle, it is an US and THEM senario, which i poopooed. Read MY post. You pretty much regurgitated what i said, just saying that im wrong and your right, which is pretty hypocritical. I admitted that there is the possability that homosexuality is caused by genetics, i also admitted the possibility that it is a lifestyle choice. I do this because i honestly dont know, and dont pretend to. It is, however, irrelevent. Gay marriage should take place because the government, religiously slanted or otherwise, should have no power in legislating over matters of emotion. I realise i have glanced over things like hatecrimes but again, off topic so ill leave it.

Im pretty sure my baby/womb/default thing has something to do with the argument, given that people were saying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice chosen for whatever stupid reasons. I simply used this example to show the complete inabillity of a human being to decide its genetic future, which, you have to admit, controls a fair bit of a persons life. When they are going to die, what food theyll like etc. Whilst the nature nurture thing might come in here, i dont think you can be 'indoctrinated' to like people of the same genital group. The fact is, if something happened in the womb or whatever, that was out of the persons control you CAN NOT BLAME them for 2 reasons. a.) theres nothing to blame them for, nothing is really wrong b.) they should not be persecuted by the ignorant masses because of something they had no say in.

If a male homosexual couple wants to reproduce they can simply take the sperm of one and find a host mother. Sure, your not getting the genes from both but at least they have a child.

Right, so what is your argument again? You're saying that homosexuality may be caused by genes, or it may be caused by lifestyle choice. And you are saying that gay marriage should be legal. Where is the argument?

As for the regurgitation comment - I was proving a point. You were just saying that "zOMG ZE DEBATE IS EVIL NAZI" and saying statements I had made were false, without actually backing that up with evidence. And the comments you made had nothing to do with the topic - this topic went off-topic at about halfway through page 2.

All I've been hearing so far by way of rebuttal is typical leftist propaganda (i.e. general stereotypes, nazis, hypocrites, etc). Cmon! Where's the tolerance?!

Funkydwarf - you stated that the government should have no power to legistlate over "emotion". This is unbelievably illogical, as I will demonstrate.

I am assuming that you are referring to the "love" that two homosexual members have for each other - correct? If so, and the government should have no power to legistlate over love - then why not man to young boy "love"? Why not stalker to stalked "love"? Why are these forms of "love" mysteriously excluded? Are we not to cater to each individual's own "form" of "love"?The answer is a dramatic and emphatic NO. For such forms of "love" are detrimental to either a member, or usually society at large. Homosexuality is not excluded from this, as I think pingu is trying to point out. Before you respond, let me emphasize something to you. I am not a nazi, religious "bigot", nor do I have any fear whatsoever of homosexuals (homophobe). Please keep this in mind before spouting your stereotypes.

If you choose to respond, please do so in some form of logical manner.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Quote:

If so, and the government should have no power to legistlate over love - then why not man to young boy "love"? Why not stalker to stalked "love"? Why are these forms of "love" mysteriously excluded? Are we not to cater to each individual's own "form" of "love"?The answer is a dramatic and emphatic NO.

In all logical arguments, it's society. And to make things short, our argument between this comes down to moral relativism and absolutism.

Quote:

For such forms of "love" are detrimental to either a member, or usually society at large.

Care to explain?

Let's just fix the problem the easy way, get rid of all marriage. Marriage via government isn't "love" its a bloody contract.

___________________

People without self-doubt scare me.
The world is my country, science is my religion. - Christiaan Huygens
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.”

Home||Truth|Love

Originally posted by pingu:

Nope.

If I have sex with a man, that bloke lacks the organs to make a baby from my sperm in his body. That's inability, isn't it?

I never said anything about homosexual sex; I just said that homosexuals are perfectably capable of reproducing if they wanted to (there's also artificial insemination).

Originally posted by Celldss:

I am assuming that you are referring to the "love" that two homosexual members have for each other - correct? If so, and the government should have no power to legistlate over love - then why not man to young boy "love"? Why not stalker to stalked "love"? Why are these forms of "love" mysteriously excluded?

If you are going to attack homosexual love, don't use the slippery slope argument, but I'll try and give my opinions on such forms of love anyway (why they are different from homosexual/heterosexual love):

- Man to boy "love" is generally unstable since a young boy (often pre-pubescent or younger) is unlikely to understand or feel what actual love is due to the fact of them being so young. They can be exploited, abused and due to their age they let it happen. In addition to this, it's likely that the man would suddenly fall out of "love" with the boy once the boy hits puberty and starts growing into an adult. The "love" would simply be one-way all the time.

- Stalker to stalked is simply one-way "love" also; it's not reciprocated. It's usually pure obssession rather than love anyway.

Neither heterosexual love or homosexual love are like this.

Originally posted by Celldss:

For such forms of "love" are detrimental to either a member, or usually society at large. Homosexuality is not excluded from this, as I think pingu is trying to point out.

Elaborate please. I don't want to be reading some generic "it will bring down society" type of argument either. Homosexuals live together whether they are married or not, and many homosexual couples are raising children, and have been doing so for years. Society hasn't completely gone chaotic has it? Homosexuals merely want to be equal to heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Celldss:

...nor do I have any fear whatsoever of homosexuals (homophobe). Please keep this in mind before spouting your stereotypes.

Unlike other forms of phobia, homophobia is not simply fear of homosexuals; it's also contempt for them.

Last edited by Jewels, October 6th, 2005 05:33 PM (Edited 1 times)

Originally posted by Jewels:

I just said that homosexuals are perfectably capable of reproducing if they wanted to (there's also artificial insemination).

False. Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. Only by resorting to scientific intervention can reproduction take place. The concept of intrinsic homosexual "reproduction" violates the natural order of the universe, and is impossible.

Quote:

Originally posted by Celldss:

I am assuming that you are referring to the "love" that two homosexual members have for each other - correct? If so, and the government should have no power to legistlate over love - then why not man to young boy "love"? Why not stalker to stalked "love"? Why are these forms of "love" mysteriously excluded?

If you are going to attack homosexual love, don't use the slippery slope argument, but I'll try and give my opinions on such forms of love anyway (why they are different from homosexual/heterosexual love):

I have not used an illogical slipperly slope argument. I am not all these things will take place as a result of homosexuality (the mentioned fallacy), I am saying if emotions should not be legistlated, then there is NO logical reason to exclude ALL emotions from being legistlated against, and that includes "love" expressed in ways most find appalling.

Quote:

- Man to boy "love" is generally unstable since a young boy (often pre-pubescent or younger) is unlikely to understand or feel what actual love is due to the fact of them being so young. They can be exploited, abused and due to their age they let it happen. In addition to this, it's likely that the man would suddenly fall out of "love" with the boy once the boy hits puberty and starts growing into an adult. The "love" would simply be one-way all the time.

Not only irrelevant, but wrong.

Quote:

- Stalker to stalked is simply one-way "love" also; it's not reciprocated. It's usually pure obssession rather than love anyway.

Again, irrelevant. The premise was that emotions should not be legistlated against, this includes ALL forms of "love".

Quote:

Elaborate please. I don't want to be reading some generic "it will bring down society" type of argument either.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter in the least what you want to read. If you are engaging in a debate, you responsibility is to respond to fact (or fiction) and reply accordingly. If you disregard simple facts because you don't want to read them, then you simply expose yourself as prejudiced.

Quote:

Homosexuals live together whether they are married or not, and many homosexual couples are raising children, and have been doing so for years. Society hasn't completely gone chaotic has it? Homosexuals merely want to be equal to heterosexuals.

Incorrect. Homosexuals are not searching for equality - they all ready have that. They also have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do. The disagreement has never been about rights. Homosexuals are searching for acceptance in society, actually, they are demanding it. Yet in order for any idea to be accepted, it must first be tested and "found worthy" by society at large. I submit that homosexuality has produced more societal problems than solved.

I would invite you to thoroughly read this article on the health risks of homosexual sex, which are disastrous. Homosexuals suffer higher rates of disease, depression, mental illness, and a host of other physical and mental disorders. Directly contributing to this are their increasingly lowering rates of fidelity, with the majority of self-identified gay men having several partners a month. As a result, the effects of many of these societal problems are laid at the feet of the average citizen (me).

Quote:

Unlike other forms of phobia, homophobia is not simply fear of homosexuals; it's also contempt for them.

I prefer the etymologically faithful definition. I do not have any contempt for the homosexual as an individual (in fact, I have had plenty of homosexual friends), just the behavior itself. I also have contempt for tomatoes, yet I would hardly call myself a tomatophobe.

___________________

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Last edited by Celldss, October 6th, 2005 07:16 PM (Edited 1 times)

I drifted away from FunkyDwarf's point and onto what you said about homosexual love being detrimental to society (or a member of). You used those examples in addition to homosexual love as being detrimental, so I pointed out why homosexual love is different from examples of "love" you gave. Which was why I then asked you to elaborate on your point (which I do want to hear).

As for the page you link to man boy love, a lot of those are mid to late teens. I don't consider them "boys". I talk about pre-pubescent boys or younger, as they are the ones at risk.

Originally posted by Celldss:

False. Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. Only by resorting to scientific intervention can reproduction take place. The concept of intrinsic homosexual "reproduction" violates the natural order of the universe, and is impossible.

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing together. Their bodies are no different from heterosexuals are they? If they wanted to reproduce they could. It just doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Celldss:

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter in the least what you want to read. If you are engaging in a debate, you responsibility is to respond to fact (or fiction) and reply accordingly. If you disregard simple facts because you don't want to read them, then you simply expose yourself as prejudiced.

I never said I would disregard that type of response, and I did already provide a response in advance to it, just in case it did happen to come up. I don't know why you didn't quote the rest of the paragraph since it was entirely relevant.

Originally posted by Celldss:

Incorrect. Homosexuals are not searching for equality - they all ready have that. They also have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do.

Wrong. They do not. I don't need to remind you about most of the world not granting the same marriage rights to them as heterosexuals. They can "marry" yes, but they don't have the same status that heterosexual couples have, and especially not in certain states in America. Why you think they already have equality I do not know.

Originally posted by Celldss:

The disagreement has never been about rights. Homosexuals are searching for acceptance in society, actually, they are demanding it. Yet in order for any idea to be accepted, it must first be tested and "found worthy" by society at large. I submit that homosexuality has produced more societal problems than solved.

You want to believe that it's not about rights, but it is. I know that the left keep saying it's about rights, and that's because it is about them. Not giving them exactly the same rights as heterosexuals is not equality, and it's not accepting them. It's blindly implying that they are somehow inferior. It's also not homosexuality itself that has produced societal problems; it's the opposition to it, and that has lead to all the controversy and debate. If homosexuals were completely equal with heterosexuals to start with, there would no problems.

Originally posted by Celldss:

I prefer the etymologically faithful definition. I do not have any contempt for the homosexual as an individual (in fact, I have had plenty of homosexual friends), just the behavior itself. I also have contempt for tomatoes, yet I would hardly call myself a tomatophobe.

It doesn't matter which definition you prefer, since its definition has evolved (and many dictionaries go with it too, as well as a lot of people).

Originally posted by Celldss:

I would invite you to thoroughly read this article on the health risks of homosexual sex, which are disastrous. Homosexuals suffer higher rates of disease, depression, mental illness, and a host of other physical and mental disorders. Directly contributing to this are their increasingly lowering rates of fidelity, with the majority of self-identified gay men having several partners a month.

You don't need to tell me that. I've read numerous articles (both for and against the article you linked) on the subject. I've read a lot over the past year, and nothing seems new. Disease, depression and mental illness have nothing to with homosexuality itself, but rather the old attitude of society. Society has become more accepting, but homosexuals still cling on to the old habits that surfaced back then (when homosexual was very taboo). I can tell you one thing that links to that: if homosexuals were absolutely and fully accepted from the start, to the level where they were perceived as absolutely normal and at the same level as heterosexuals, there would be no "gay clubs" or "gay bars". Things wouldn't be specialised for them like they still are now. Homosexuals would be living the "normal" life just like heterosexuals. That is full equality, and if that ever happens, those "higher rates" will drop.

Uneducated homosexuals are the ones who choose these to have promiscous sex and take drugs. Homosexuality itself is not to blame, nor is society, just the indiviudual who's choosing to do so. Many people (both homosexual and heterosexual) make bad choices and yes statistics do seem to show that there are more homosexuals who are like this. They need not be though if society fully accepted them, and the homosexuals themselves must also feel that way; it's not enough to simply assume that just because a homosexual was living in an accepting area, that they would automatically feel fully accepted. But despite that, there will always be promiscuous people with multiple sex partners though, as there are many heterosexual people like that too (there just aren't lots of studies on them since society doesn't focus on them much).

Anyway there are many gay couples who are perfectly healthy, faithful and are completely monogomous and also raise children. Marriage has only helped strengthen that. It encourages homosexuals to be committed and not have the attitude of not caring about who they have sex with or what they do.

Originally posted by Celldss:

As a result, the effects of many of these societal problems are laid at the feet of the average citizen (me)

Elaborate on "societal problems" and how they affected you exactly.