Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless if it is the cause or the symptom, it is always present in mass.
Whether Rome, Greece, Media-Persia or any other historic demise. The pattern goes,
Resources, Knowledge, Wealth, Unbridled gluttony, Sensualism, Hedonism.
Canada will be around for many more years. That is unless we are invaded by the United States due to a swath of Christian fundamentalism and a fearful population. Most civilizations downfall in history can be attributed to religious wars and economic collapse due to dwindling resources and incompetent leadership. Not because of sexuality!
[1] I see homosexuality becoming a fad for many young people to experiment with and flaunt. I see society embracing homosexuality as something sexy and glamorous and desirable. (Pop stars - Lindsay Lohan, American Idol singer, Qu**r Eye, Top Model, most Bravo shows) This damages society. It degrades the foundation of male-female interpersonal relationships. And for those who choose to practice religion, it erodes the foundation of their values (the Catholic Church - molestation scandals).
Define the nature of this damage to society. And, please, explain how it degrades the foundation of male-female interpersonal relationships. Nice wordage you're tossing around but exactly what does it mean?
Quote:
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they have to recruit people into their lifestyle.
I hadn't realized you believed homosexuality was genetic. But that isn't the issue. It doesn't matter how it happens, it happens that some people are born attracted to the opposite sex and it happens enough that no one need be recruited.
And you are wrong about homosexuals not being able to reproduce. They're gay, not sterile. There are millions of children who were conceived by gays.
So let me get this straight - by not allowing me to marry my gay lover whom I love is setting me free? By not creating laws to protect me from getting bashed on the basis of my sexuality is setting me free?
What can't you do with your gay partner without a title of married?. You have the right to contract under the constitution, you can make him the legal guardian of your estate, life, health, adopted children. You can get jobs that give you health insurance, or start a business together, have sex with eachother or not.
If its just for the married filing jointly tax benefit, Obama is bound to take that away in the near future.
Leave the definition of Marriage alone and go on living, why pick a fight?
There are already laws against assault, why special one's for you?
As far as the APA was concerned homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1973. Homosexuals stormed the APA at annual meetings in order to have it removed from their list of mental disorders.
Science stands alone and is quite cut and dry as far as homosexuality is concerned, it's a neutral existence - as far as biologically it creates nothing. I am not talking about heterosexuals who do not or cannot procreate but have the potential to create life as do homosexuals who choose not to use their reproductive capacity. I understand that not every human has a desire to have children or physiologically because of medical issues cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is a neutral condition which produces nothing.
Yes, humans can engage in a variety of sexual acts, I agree. Some acts are abnormal because they are not physiologically compatible with nature.
I am not abusing anyone because of my views. They are my opinions which some people disagree with but I am not abusing anyone because of them.
As I said earlier, you are targeting a group.
Reproduction and sexual orientation have very little to do with each other. And, how is a sexual act not phyisologically compatiable with nature if nature gives humans the capability to engage in the act? Don't use the procreation argument again.
Regardless of why the APA changed the classification, they did. Perhaps it was more due to the fact that America was becoming more tolerant and accepting in general in the years prior to 1973? Just a thought.
What can't you do with your gay partner without a title of married?. You have the right to contract under the constitution, you can make him the legal guardian of your estate, life, health, adopted children. You can get jobs that give you health insurance, or start a business together, have sex with eachother or not.
If its just for the married filing jointly tax benefit, Obama is bound to take that away in the near future.
Leave the definition of Marriage alone and go on living, why pick a fight?
There are already laws against assault, why special one's for you?
I don't see the point of the law treating my union differently than a heterosexual union. If i find the love of my life - i want to marry him and I don't want my country to treat me any differently than any other citizen. You speak of homosexuality as a threat to society, yet homosexuals are actually seeking to have their unions deemed an equally valid union of a committed and loving couple. I find this highly ironic as the general perception of your kind is we are a bunch of uncommitted raving sexual lunatics who want to sleep with your children. Ironic eh?
Reproduction and sexual orientation have very little to do with each other. And, how is a sexual act not phyisologically compatiable with nature if nature gives humans the capability to engage in the act? Don't use the procreation argument again.
Regardless of why the APA changed the classification, they did. Perhaps it was more due to the fact that America was becoming more tolerant and accepting in general in the years prior to 1973? Just a thought.
Nature gives people the ability to cut someone's head off. I don't think we should use the argument ; if it's possible just do it.
Allah Akbaar....Allah Akbaar .........off with his head.
Some acts are abnormal because they are not physiologically compatible with nature.
In sociological/psychological jargon, abnormal is generally considered to mean "not typical". No judgement is involved and certainly it has nothing to do with incompatibility with nature, whatever that means.
I don't see the point of the law treating my union differently than a heterosexual union. If i find the love of my life - i want to marry him and I don't want my country to treat me any differently than any other citizen.
Sounds selfish and inconsiderate of 95% of the population.
One solution is to start your own country. Or go to one that allows your desires.
Nature gives people the ability to cut someone's head off. I don't think we should use the argument ; if it's possible just do it.
Allah Akbaar....Allah Akbaar .........off with his head.
Concomitantly, the majority of muslims are not murderous fundamentalists either, so lets not treat them all like they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
