Not supporting gay marriage makes you a homophobe: agree or disagree (carry, percent)

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by rebel12

Maybe in your sand box. In real life babies are mostly born out of heterosexual unions.

Your statement was that heterosexuality ensures the survival of the species. In reality it's just the process of making babies that does this, which can and does happen through the efforts and contributions of two homosexuals. We didn't even get on the subject of who conceives more children.

Originally Posted by rebel12

It's relevant to prove that there is no equality between hetero- and homosexuality: heterosexuality is socially productive while homosexuality is not.

Nonsense. Heterosexuality in and of itself contributes nothing, no different from homosexuality. Children born of/raised by heterosexuals are no more a contribution to society than children born of/raised by homosexuals. Further, the ability to reproduce has nothing to do with whether someone should be able to marry or adopt. If you disagree, please explain why. And explain why you wouldn't also make it illegal for heterosexuals who cannot reproduce to marry and adopt, if this is really the principle you're standing for.

Originally Posted by rebel12

Nothing is a mere coincidence in nature, if some individuals were 'mentally castrated' by becoming homosexual, there must be a good reason for it.

This is also not a direct response to the question I asked you. Here it is again:

What makes you think homosexuality has/will cause humankind to lose more bad traits than good?

Summarized: You cannot point to an identifiable, verifiable harm caused by homosexuality or gay marriage to individuals, families, or society in general. If you could, you would've done it already.

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Your statement was that heterosexuality ensures the survival of the species. In reality it's just the process of making babies that does this, which can and does happen through the efforts and contributions of two homosexuals. We didn't even get on the subject of who conceives more children.

Are you for real??? How big would our population be today if it was created through efforts and contributions of two homosexuals?? LOL

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Nonsense. Heterosexuality in and of itself contributes nothing

Of course it does, heterosexuality forces people to have heterosexual sex and raise kids in heterosexual unions.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

This is also not a direct response to the question I asked you. Here it is again:

What makes you think homosexuality has/will cause humankind to lose more bad traits than good?

Because nothing is a coincidence in nature.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by rebel12

Are you for real???

Wow, great argument.

Originally Posted by rebel12

Of course it does, heterosexuality forces people to have heterosexual sex and raise kids in heterosexual unions.

Well, no, it doesn't. That's why a lot of heterosexuals go years at a time and spend the vast majority of their lives not having sex or being in a relationship. Just as homosexuality does not prevent gays from making babies or entering into a committed relationship, heterosexuality does not cause heterosexuals to make babies or get married.

And don't think I haven't noticed your evasion of a simple challenge:

"And explain why you wouldn't also make it illegal for heterosexuals who cannot reproduce to marry and adopt, if this is really the principle you're standing for ('Only people who can reproduce should be allowed to marry or adopt')."

Originally Posted by rebel12

Because nothing is a coincidence in nature.

Okay, what are you observing that makes you think there is some "coincidence" to speak of? What makes you think some valuable genes/traits have been lost as a result of homosexuality?

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Wow, great argument.

You want to argue that 99.99% of population is a NOT a result of heterosexual relationships? LOL

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well, no, it doesn't. That's why a lot of heterosexuals go years at a time and spend the vast majority of their lives not having sex or being in a relationship. Just as homosexuality does not prevent gays from making babies or entering into a committed relationship, heterosexuality does not cause heterosexuals to make babies or get married.

Of course it does. Heterosexuality and heterosexual sexual instinct is what drives people to have heterosexual relationships and make babies.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And don't think I haven't noticed your evasion of a simple challenge:

"And explain why you wouldn't also make it illegal for heterosexuals who cannot reproduce to marry and adopt, if this is really the principle you're standing for ('Only people who can reproduce should be allowed to marry or adopt')."

I never said that only people who can reproduce should be allowed to marry.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Okay, what are you observing that makes you think there is some "coincidence" to speak of? What makes you think some valuable genes/traits have been lost as a result of homosexuality?

I don't think that genes lost due to homosexuality were valuable. Nature is not wasteful.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by rebel12

You want to argue that 99.99% of population is a NOT a result of heterosexual relationships? LOL

Again, that was not the argument. You said that heterosexuality itself ensures the survival of our species, when it is actually conception of human life (which is no longer exclusively for heterosexuals) that does this.

Originally Posted by rebel12

Of course it does. Heterosexuality and heterosexual sexual instinct is what drives people to have heterosexual relationships and make babies.

Then how do you explain all those heterosexuals who have not and/or are not doing either? Seems to me that heterosexuality is not what drives them to do these things at all, since many homosexuals get in committed (sometimes even heterosexual) relationships and make babies.

Originally Posted by rebel12

I never said that only people who can reproduce should be allowed to marry.

But you argued that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equal specifically because heterosexuality "ensures the survival of the species" through natural reproduction and homosexuality doesn't. Was that not what you meant in the following conversation?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Oh my. Not only should we be silent about the promotion of discrimination against gays; now we should respect it? Who is really in need of a sermon on intolerance, those who think a difference in sexuality should mean fewer freedoms or those who criticize such an attitude?

Originally Posted by rebel12

Who ever said heterosexuality and homosexuality is equal?
Heterosexuality ensures survival of the species, I hope you won't argue that point.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But how do you figure this point is relevant to whether or not gays should be allowed to marry and adopt?

Originally Posted by rebel12

It's relevant to prove that there is no equality between hetero- and homosexuality: heterosexuality is socially productive while homosexuality is not.

If this standard was not why you think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt, why did you even bring it up?

Originally Posted by rebel12

I don't think that genes lost due to homosexuality were valuable. Nature is not wasteful.

I'll try once more, rebel12. What genes are you suggesting were lost due to homosexuality in the first place? It sounds as if you are utterly making stuff up now.

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Again, that was not the argument. You said that heterosexuality itself ensures the survival of our species, when it is actually conception of human life (which is no longer exclusively for heterosexuals) that does this.

No longer? You are simply hallarious. If it wasn't for heterosexuals you wouldn't be here. Isn't that clear yet?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Then how do you explain all those heterosexuals who have not and/or are not doing either? Seems to me that heterosexuality is not what drives them to do these things at all, since many homosexuals get in committed (sometimes even heterosexual) relationships and make babies.

What else should I explain to you? Why the sky is blue? LOL
You can have all the homosexual sex you want and you will not make a baby. It takes heterosexual sex to procreate.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But you argued that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equal specifically because heterosexuality "ensures the survival of the species" through natural reproduction and homosexuality doesn't. Was that not what you meant in the following conversation?

Do you think homosexuality ensure the survival of the species? How?


[quote=Vic 2.0;26007341]
If this standard was not why you think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt, why did you even bring it up?

Gays can marry. Nobody says know. Marriage however is an union between a man and a women.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I'll try once more, rebel12. What genes are you suggesting were lost due to homosexuality in the first place? It sounds as if you are utterly making stuff up now.

I'll try again too. Do you think homosexulaity is a concidence? Nothing is a coincidence in nature. Homosexuality is nature's way of purging certain traits, genes or rather combination of genes from our genetic pool. Are we clear now?

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

You said that heterosexuality itself ensures the survival of our species, when it is actually conception of human life (which is no longer exclusively for heterosexuals) that does this.

Originally Posted by rebel12

No longer? You are simply hallarious. If it wasn't for heterosexuals you wouldn't be here. Isn't that clear yet?

Well it isn't any longer exclusively for heterosexuals. Do you deny even this, or are you just all attitude? And how do you know that a homosexual didn't play an essential role in getting me here?

You don't.

Originally Posted by rebel12

You can have all the homosexual sex you want and you will not make a baby. It takes heterosexual sex to procreate.

Yet again, no, it doesn't. Not anymore. People can reproduce without heterosexual intercourse.

And it's time for you to stop dodging the question: Is the lack of ability to reproduce reason to keep someone from getting married or adopting? You seem to be arguing that it is for homosexuals, but not for heterosexuals that also cannot reproduce. Why?

Originally Posted by rebel12

Do you think homosexuality ensure the survival of the species? How?

I already explained this to you. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality has ensured the survival of the species. Only procreation has accomplished this, and procreation is something both heterosexuals and homosexuals can achieve. So while your argument may have meant something decades ago, it holds no weight today.

Originally Posted by rebel12

Gays can marry. Nobody says know. Marriage however is an union between a man and a women.

I guess what you're trying to say here is you're okay with gay marriage being legal; you just won't be calling it "marriage"? I mean, really, clarify your stance here if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by rebel12

I'll try again too. Do you think homosexulaity is a concidence? Nothing is a coincidence in nature. Homosexuality is nature's way of purging certain traits, genes or rather combination of genes from our genetic pool. Are we clear now?

Completely unfounded, and you certainly have failed to identify what traits, genes, or combinations of genes have been purged. I'm afraid your unsupported theories on homosexuality do not merit the authority to limit another person's freedoms. What else ya got?

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Well it isn't any longer exclusively for heterosexuals. Do you deny even this, or are you just all attitude? And how do you know that a homosexual didn't play an essential role in getting me here?

I have no idea how you come up with these crazy ideas. Of course no homosexual was involved. Do you know where babies came from? )

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Yet again, no, it doesn't. Not anymore. People can reproduce without heterosexual intercourse.

And what is the percentage of population that came to this world this way?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And it's time for you to stop dodging the question: Is the lack of ability to reproduce reason to keep someone from getting married or adopting? You seem to be arguing that it is for homosexuals, but not for heterosexuals that also cannot reproduce. Why?

Who talks about reproduction? Marriage has always been an union of a man and a women.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I already explained this to you. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality has ensured the survival of the species. Only procreation has accomplished this, and procreation is something both heterosexuals and homosexuals can achieve. So while your argument may have meant something decades ago, it holds no weight today.

You are tripping kid. Procreation is in 99.99% a heterosexual matter.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I guess what you're trying to say here is you're okay with gay marriage being legal; you just won't be calling it "marriage"? I mean, really, clarify your stance here if you don't mind.

You already have civil unions. What else do you want?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Completely unfounded, and you certainly have failed to identify what traits, genes, or combinations of genes have been purged. I'm afraid your unsupported theories on homosexuality do not merit the authority to limit another person's freedoms. What else ya got?

Do you really think your homosexuality is a coincidence? Nothing is a coincidence in nature. And no: homosexuality is not equal with heterosexuality.

[joebaldknobber]

Anal pleasures frighten me. If that make me homophobic, I am happy to have no weiners in my backside.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by rebel12

I'll try again too. Do you think homosexulaity is a concidence? Nothing is a coincidence in nature. Homosexuality is nature's way of purging certain traits, genes or rather combination of genes from our genetic pool. Are we clear now?

Homosexual people can and do reproduce through heterosexual sex, and in no small numbers. That's probably one of the reasons it persists in our populations.