|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:40 pm
itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? Natural (Nat-u-ral) -noun existing in or formed by nature. (as opposed to Artificial) Homosexuality is completely natural, it exists at a genetic level and has been observed in many other species besides humans.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:20 pm
SolarInvictus itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? Natural (Nat-u-ral) -noun existing in or formed by nature. (as opposed to Artificial) Homosexuality is completely natural, it exists at a genetic level and has been observed in many other species besides humans. nobody is born homosexual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:27 pm
itchyman24 SolarInvictus itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? Natural (Nat-u-ral) -noun existing in or formed by nature. (as opposed to Artificial) Homosexuality is completely natural, it exists at a genetic level and has been observed in many other species besides humans. nobody is born homosexual Are you serious? Who told you this? Like I said Homosexuality exists on the genetic level, as in it is there since before the person is born. The reason it takes so long for some people to realize that they are homosexual is that as soon as they are born they are bombarded with images of the intended result that they marry the opposite gender. It is a completely psychological phenomena that people need to realize that they are homosexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:47 pm
SolarInvictus itchyman24 SolarInvictus itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? Natural (Nat-u-ral) -noun existing in or formed by nature. (as opposed to Artificial) Homosexuality is completely natural, it exists at a genetic level and has been observed in many other species besides humans. nobody is born homosexual Are you serious? Who told you this? Like I said Homosexuality exists on the genetic level, as in it is there since before the person is born. The reason it takes so long for some people to realize that they are homosexual is that as soon as they are born they are bombarded with images of the intended result that they marry the opposite gender. It is a completely psychological phenomena that people need to realize that they are homosexual. phenomenon-n.
any fact, circumstance, or experience that is apparent to the senses that can be scientifically described or appraised.
so is homosexuality a dominant or recessive trait? chromosome 1-23? because those are the things that determine genetics, which is a science. if this cannot be proved, it is not a natural phenomenon. plus, how can you acquire a gene that cannot be passed on? homosexuals cannot have children! so no genes can be passed on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:50 pm
itchyman24 phenomenon-n.
any fact, circumstance, or experience that is apparent to the senses that can be scientifically described or appraised.
so is homosexuality a dominant or recessive trait? chromosome 1-23? because those are the things that determine genetics, which is a science. if this cannot be proved, it is not a natural phenomenon. plus, how can you acquire a gene that cannot be passed on? homosexuals cannot have children! so no genes can be passed on. Congratulations! You just answered your own question. Well done. A recessive trait is not expressed if the dominant trait is present, but can appear in off-spring should both parents have the recessive trait. Ergo, homosexuality can be passed on to children should it be a recessive trait. However, scientifically.. There's no evidence as to it being nurture or nature or what combination thereof it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:04 pm
Shiori Miko itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? So because it isn't natural it isn't right? Computers aren't natural. Your house isn't. Books aren't natural. Light bulbs. TVs. depends on what you mean by natural. if you mean to use the definition "that which occurs in nature", then all those things are natural. they are all tools. EVERY animal has tools. any characteristic or adaptation such as sharp nails, venom, etc... is a tool to the animal. as humans, we have the tool of the brain and with that, we create all those things.
natural enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:10 pm
itchyman24 Shiori Miko itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? So because it isn't natural it isn't right? Computers aren't natural. Your house isn't. Books aren't natural. Light bulbs. TVs. depends on what you mean by natural. if you mean to use the definition "that which occurs in nature", then all those things are natural. they are all tools. EVERY animal has tools. any characteristic or adaptation such as sharp nails, venom, etc... is a tool to the animal. as humans, we have the tool of the brain and with that, we create all those things.
natural enough for you? Actually from a biological standpoint, tool use is not only rare, but generally indicates a level of intelligence. But then, you're incorrectly defining venom and claws as tools. Tools are, by definition, external objects modified to serve a purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:17 pm
Valheita itchyman24 Shiori Miko itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage.
i don't see the point behind it.
you're SUPPOSED to NATURALLY be attracted to the opposite sex.
gay marriage is unnatural and goes against a ton of things.
earlier in this thread, there was a post talking about how homosexuals were killed in earlier times:
ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? So because it isn't natural it isn't right? Computers aren't natural. Your house isn't. Books aren't natural. Light bulbs. TVs. depends on what you mean by natural. if you mean to use the definition "that which occurs in nature", then all those things are natural. they are all tools. EVERY animal has tools. any characteristic or adaptation such as sharp nails, venom, etc... is a tool to the animal. as humans, we have the tool of the brain and with that, we create all those things.
natural enough for you? Actually from a biological standpoint, tool use is not only rare, but generally indicates a level of intelligence. But then, you're incorrectly defining venom and claws as tools. Tools are, by definition, external objects modified to serve a purpose. well... i really don't see anything wrong with the way i define tool... it's something you use to help make life easier. so i would consider my examples as valid ones.
i'm still waiting for someone to attack my point of sodom and gommorah though... i think it would be fun to debate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:21 pm
itchyman24 well... i really don't see anything wrong with the way i define tool... it's something you use to help make life easier. so i would consider my examples as valid ones.
i'm still waiting for someone to attack my point of sodom and gommorah though... i think it would be fun to debate Aside from the fact that it's your own personal definition, thus absolutely meaningless in the debate? Just because you call something a tool, doesn't make it a tool. As for the point regarding Sodom and Gomorrah... Well quite aside that a reference to literary texts proves nothing beyond the author of the text having a bias against them, Sodom and Gomorrah did much worse things than homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:45 am
Valheita itchyman24 well... i really don't see anything wrong with the way i define tool... it's something you use to help make life easier. so i would consider my examples as valid ones.
i'm still waiting for someone to attack my point of sodom and gommorah though... i think it would be fun to debate Aside from the fact that it's your own personal definition, thus absolutely meaningless in the debate? Just because you call something a tool, doesn't make it a tool. As for the point regarding Sodom and Gomorrah... Well quite aside that a reference to literary texts proves nothing beyond the author of the text having a bias against them, Sodom and Gomorrah did much worse things than homosexuality. everything humans write has some bias in it. but homosexuality was one of the main reasons the town was smited.
and there are other times in history when homosexuals were victims of violence....
Justinian, the roman emperor, had every homosexual's genitals chopped off.
i'd rather not have marriage than not have genitals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:20 am
itchyman24 nobody is born homosexual ₲reen acid on your Ϩʞ↕и
Nobody is born to be attracted to a certain sex, period. It's all in your mind and what you view as attractive. It'd be like saying I was naturally born to love rock music. No, I was born and then grew up listening to certain types of music and eventually made up my mind what I liked and what I wanted.
My sister NEVER liked guys when she was a little girl. She only wanted girls as friends, girls at her parties, but she wore boy-ish clothing. Didn't like the "girly" stuff but she liked girls. Was she born this way? No. But she obviously wasn't born to only like males either. You choose what you want, sometimes something makes up your mind, sometimes something changes your mind.
Also, people were pretty ignorant back in the older times. Did you know that almost every woman back then with an unnatural hair color such as red or a white blond was considered a witch? Males with excess hair on their hands and palms were considered a demon of sorts? Humans with extended canines were considered vampires? Black people were treated as slaves and now the homosexuals are treated as unnatural creatures that deserved to be destroyed? =/ Seriously?
₣eels like you're dieing ΔɠΔ↕и
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:47 pm
itchyman24
i'd rather not have marriage than not have genitals.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry just owned you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:06 pm
itchyman24 Valheita itchyman24 well... i really don't see anything wrong with the way i define tool... it's something you use to help make life easier. so i would consider my examples as valid ones.
i'm still waiting for someone to attack my point of sodom and gommorah though... i think it would be fun to debate Aside from the fact that it's your own personal definition, thus absolutely meaningless in the debate? Just because you call something a tool, doesn't make it a tool. As for the point regarding Sodom and Gomorrah... Well quite aside that a reference to literary texts proves nothing beyond the author of the text having a bias against them, Sodom and Gomorrah did much worse things than homosexuality. everything humans write has some bias in it. but homosexuality was one of the main reasons the town was smited.
and there are other times in history when homosexuals were victims of violence....
Justinian, the roman emperor, had every homosexual's genitals chopped off.
i'd rather not have marriage than not have genitals. Sure all texts have at least some form of bias, but when you consider the amount of bias the bible has as well as innumerable entries of physical impossibilities no sane person would allow the bible as evidence in an actual debate. Correction Justinian was the emperor of Byzantium, and in case anyone hasn't looked at the topic in awhile, this is about Homosexual's rights in modern day society. Yes Homosexuals were discriminated against heavily in the past, but the entire point of History and discussions is so that we don't repeat the mistakes of those who came before us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:01 pm
Rayne Bloodstone ...and now the homosexuals are treated as unnatural creatures that deserved to be destroyed? =/ Seriously? so lets pick apart this sentence here...
treated as unnatural creatures- i've already proven that they ARE unnatural
deserve to be destroyed- if i seem to have mentioned that homosexuals do deserve to be destroyed, it was unintentional. however, homosexuality is in itself destruction. for every homosexual, there are two less parents in the world. it's a human's natural instinct to pass on it's species and by not passing on your genes, they are lost forever, destroyed. SolarInvictus Sure all texts have at least some form of bias, but when you consider the amount of bias the bible has as well as innumerable entries of physical impossibilities no sane person would allow the bible as evidence in an actual debate. Correction Justinian was the emperor of Byzantium, and in case anyone hasn't looked at the topic in awhile, this is about Homosexual's rights in modern day society. Yes Homosexuals were discriminated against heavily in the past, but the entire point of History and discussions is so that we don't repeat the mistakes of those who came before us. ok, so lets get back to the main topic then. why should homosexuals be able to get married? the concept of marriage has been obscured over the years. you're supposed to have kids, raise a family after marriage. homosexuals cannot do that.
plus, marriage is a religious ceremony. every main religion looks down upon homosexuality. so homosexuality and religion don't mix.
also, whose last name would you take?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:19 pm
itchyman24 you're supposed to have kids, raise a family after marriage. homosexuals cannot do that. itchyman24 also, whose last name would you take?
Whose last name do a heterosexual couple take? Sure, the norm is for the woman to take the man's last name, but there's no rule saying that has to be the case. Some couples hyphenate, some keep their own names, some change to the woman's last name... etc.
Does not having a stereotypical naming system to fall back on somehow make homosexual marriages wrong? No. I think you're just pulling these "arguments" out of your a** because you have nothing to base your beliefs on (except religion, which I'm not even going to get into debating XD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
