Proposition 8

The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? matthayter700

The amendment is supposedly constitutional yet it goes against what America stands for. Its extremely hypocritical and america deserves no respect for kicking itself in the ass.

What you can do for you'r country? Looks like Americans don't want to do whats right.

[QUOTE="matthayter700"]

The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? LJS9502_basic

Well, that sounds kinda familiar... though ironically homosexuality has been observed in some animals too...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="matthayter700"]

The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? matthayter700

Well, that sounds kinda familiar... though ironically homosexuality has been observed in some animals too...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="matthayter700"]

The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? matthayter700

Well, that sounds kinda familiar... though ironically homosexuality has been observed in some animals too...

Though to be fair...it could be that some animals are bisexual.

[QUOTE="matthayter700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="matthayter700"]

The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? LJS9502_basic

Well, that sounds kinda familiar... though ironically homosexuality has been observed in some animals too...

Though to be fair...it could be that some animals are bisexual.

My point was that the notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "not natural" is questionable at best, though the person I was initially saying that to still hasn't clarified what they're referring to as being un-natural about it that isn't un-natural about straight marriage... again, "natural" sounds like a pretty arbitrary distinction when you think about it.

My point was that the notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "not natural" is questionable at best, though the person I was initially saying that to still hasn't clarified what they're referring to as being un-natural about it that isn't un-natural about straight marriage... again, "natural" sounds like a pretty arbitrary distinction when you think about it.

matthayter700

Ah well for the sake of argument....the natural vs unnatural argument stems from procreation and propagation of the species. In addition to the percentage aspect.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="matthayter700"]

My point was that the notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "not natural" is questionable at best, though the person I was initially saying that to still hasn't clarified what they're referring to as being un-natural about it that isn't un-natural about straight marriage... again, "natural" sounds like a pretty arbitrary distinction when you think about it.

LJS9502_basic

Just to check, what do you mean by "percentage aspect"? The fact that homosexuals are 2-3% of the population? (EDIT: And therefore a very small minority?)

As for procreation, I'm straight but I don't plan on reproducing... partly because if type 1 diabetes is genetically inheritable I don't want to pass on my diabetic genes, and partly because I'm not sure I'd feel good about adding to the world's population when the world's environmental problems would be much easier to solve if our population was smaller... if and when I feel ready to raise a child I'll try to adopt one.

As for procreation, I'm straight but I don't plan on reproducing... partly because if type 1 diabetes is genetically inheritable I don't want to pass on my diabetic genes, and partly because I'm not sure I'd feel good about adding to the world's population when the world's environmental problems would be much easier to solve if our population was smaller... if and when I feel ready to raise a child I'll try to adopt one.

matthayter700

Just to check, what do you mean by "percentage aspect"? The fact that homosexuals are 2-3% of the population? (EDIT: And therefore a very small minority?)

As for procreation, I'm straight but I don't plan on reproducing... partly because if type 1 diabetes is genetically inheritable I don't want to pass on my diabetic genes, and partly because I'm not sure I'd feel good about adding to the world's population when the world's environmental problems would be much easier to solve if our population was smaller... if and when I feel ready to raise a child I'll try to adopt one.

matthayter700

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

LikeHaterade

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

You can't just say "well one gay guy turned straight, so it's totally not natural".

There are theoretically two types of homosexuals. There are the natural ones, with biological(/genetic?) differences from heterosexuals. Then there are ones who, through some traumatic experience in their lives, had a sexual preference shift. Most of the gay people I know have never had ANY attraction towardsthe opposite sex. I know one or two who were (very unfortunately) physically or sexually abused who are attracted to the same sex 'for the most part'. Neither will deny a LITTLE attraction for the opposite sex, but nothing ever gets past first base with them with that.

Then, there are the fakers. The guys who pretend to be gay(or, more rarely, the girls who pretend to be lesbians) to get closer to a certain person they're targeting.

There IS biological proof of homosexuals being different than heterosexuals. It's just that while that proof is indeed quite solid, homosexual leanings can seemingly also be fostered through "environment" (although some would say that such abuse would be less of an attraction towards the same-sex and more of a loss of attraction of the opposite sex, with the same-sex gaining some pointswith that kind of contrast).

Also of note, there's really no proof that it's a choice. Sure, there's always a choice whether to have sex or not, but there's no choice in attraction.

[QUOTE="matthayter700"]

Just to check, what do you mean by "percentage aspect"? The fact that homosexuals are 2-3% of the population? (EDIT: And therefore a very small minority?)

As for procreation, I'm straight but I don't plan on reproducing... partly because if type 1 diabetes is genetically inheritable I don't want to pass on my diabetic genes, and partly because I'm not sure I'd feel good about adding to the world's population when the world's environmental problems would be much easier to solve if our population was smaller... if and when I feel ready to raise a child I'll try to adopt one.

LJS9502_basic

Ah ok fair enough, I guess I misunderstood then.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Lockedge

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

You can't just say "well one gay guy turned straight, so it's totally not natural".

There are theoretically two types of homosexuals. There are the natural ones, with biological(/genetic?) differences from heterosexuals. Then there are ones who, through some traumatic experience in their lives, had a sexual preference shift. Most of the gay people I know have never had ANY attraction towardsthe opposite sex. I know one or two who were (very unfortunately) physically or sexually abused who are attracted to the same sex 'for the most part'. Neither will deny a LITTLE attraction for the opposite sex, but nothing ever gets past first base with them with that.

Then, there are the fakers. The guys who pretend to be gay(or, more rarely, the girls who pretend to be lesbians) to get closer to a certain person they're targeting.

There IS biological proof of homosexuals being different than heterosexuals. It's just that while that proof is indeed quite solid, homosexual leanings can seemingly also be fostered through "environment" (although some would say that such abuse would be less of an attraction towards the same-sex and more of a loss of attraction of the opposite sex, with the same-sex gaining some pointswith that kind of contrast).

Also of note, there's really no proof that it's a choice. Sure, there's always a choice whether to have sex or not, but there's no choice in attraction.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to think attraction is a choice... even if you don't believe the psychology professors who say otherwise (and I have to wonder why not; who else are you going to believe?) the idea that they'd choose to have attractions that make them looked down upon sounds absurd in itself.

The passing of prop 8 was probably the most shameful thing I have witnessed simply because it made absolutely no sense in terms with our country. We are proclaimed to be the "Land of the Free," hell we fight wars just for this proclaimed freedom, yet this prop removes that freedom/right for marriage for that minority. I am pretty sure that many of you guys saw the ads that were pro prop 8; spewing nonsense that weren't true, such as, schools teaching our children about gay marriages. I would also like to bring up the argument that most people do not realize that there are two type of marriages; one that can be done through means of a church and one that can be done through state recognition. I agree that churches should have the right to not support/conduct gay marriage ceremonies if the religion does not tolerate, however, gays should have every right to be married and recognized by the state. This way, no religion is harmed and noone is discriminated against. It is perfectly fine to not condone or approve of gay marriages due to personal beliefs, but recognize that it is wrong eliminate that human right everyone is entitled to. I sense a revolt in a near future... and rightly so.bsin94

Well said but you know as well as I do people expect everyone to conform to their religious beliefs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they're hiding their homophobia and bigotry behing religion, as though it's their right to dictate other people's personal lives.

Gay couples are already together, allowing them to marry will afford them the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. People aren't going to suddenly turn gay and these homosexuals won't be turning straight just becausegay marriage has been banned. It's utterly ridiculous.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

Pirate700

And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.

Hmmm let's see, serial killers harm other people. Homosexuals harm who exactly?

[QUOTE="redstorm72"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

LJS9502_basic

There are genes for every thing that we are, so there probably is a gay gene, but there are also genes for skin colour as well. That means that you can't change your sexual orientation just like you can't change your skin colour .

There are plenty of factors suggesting that it is biological, whether it be genes or body chemistry. Gay men are more likely to have a hair whorl that twists in the opposite direction to straight men, they are more likely to have shorter ring finger and have different sexual responses in their brain.

Homosexuality is natural... It's just that the majority of people are straight so people assume since it's uncommon that it's unnatural. It's just like being left-handed. >_>

[/coming from a Psychology student]

Also, as for gay marriage, I don't think religion should play this big a part in the way our country runs, yet it does, sadly... If religious people are against it then fine, ban it from your church. But there are legal benefits to it that fit under the defintion of marriage that's more law-based than religion-based... And as for the unreligious people who are against it, I have no idea. Maybe they assume it's unnatural or something.

Supporting complete equality for homosexuals is not a strict liberal concept. I've seen many democrats stand up and spout hatred, therefore, this does not suprise or shock me at all.

There are plenty of factors suggesting that it is biological, whether it be genes or body chemistry. Gay men are more likely to have a hair whorl that twists in the opposite direction to straight men, they are more likely to have shorter ring finger and have different sexual responses in their brain.

Red-XIII

[QUOTE="bsin94"]The passing of prop 8 was probably the most shameful thing I have witnessed simply because it made absolutely no sense in terms with our country. We are proclaimed to be the "Land of the Free," hell we fight wars just for this proclaimed freedom, yet this prop removes that freedom/right for marriage for that minority. I am pretty sure that many of you guys saw the ads that were pro prop 8; spewing nonsense that weren't true, such as, schools teaching our children about gay marriages. I would also like to bring up the argument that most people do not realize that there are two type of marriages; one that can be done through means of a church and one that can be done through state recognition. I agree that churches should have the right to not support/conduct gay marriage ceremonies if the religion does not tolerate, however, gays should have every right to be married and recognized by the state. This way, no religion is harmed and noone is discriminated against. It is perfectly fine to not condone or approve of gay marriages due to personal beliefs, but recognize that it is wrong eliminate that human right everyone is entitled to. I sense a revolt in a near future... and rightly so.Red-XIII

Well said but you know as well as I do people expect everyone to conform to their religious beliefs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they're hiding their homophobia and bigotry behing religion, as though it's their right to dictate other people's personal lives.

Gay couples are already together, allowing them to marry will afford them the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. People aren't going to suddenly turn gay and these homosexuals won't be turning straight just becausegay marriage has been banned. It's utterly ridiculous.

And unfortunately, since probably all of the same-sex marriages will be anulled through the court, same-sex couple will be back to paying stupid amounts of taxes because the IRS and the federal government don't support same-sex marriage. Anyone saying civil unions and domestic partnerships award same-sex couples the same benefits aren't losing thousands of dollars a year in taxes that would be avoidable otherwise.

Here's one link explaining some of the financial tax burdens same-sex couples have to tackle without being 'married'.

The federal government supports "marriages".Maybe some people will understand why gay people are feeling skimped out on with this bill passing.

Homosexuality is natural... It's just that the majority of people are straight so people assume since it's uncommon that it's unnatural. It's just like being left-handed. >_>

[/coming from a Psychology student]

Also, as for gay marriage, I don't think religion should play this big a part in the way our country runs, yet it does, sadly... If religious people are against it then fine, ban it from your church. But there are legal benefits to it that fit under the defintion of marriage that's more law-based than religion-based... And as for the unreligious people who are against it, I have no idea. Maybe they assume it's unnatural or something.

Aquat1cF1sh

Whether or not it's unnatural is irrelevant either way, since something being natural does not automatically mean it's "good." Diseases like polio and smallpox are natural, but are those considered good? What about natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes?

Also, just because something is unnatural (artificial) doesn't mean it's "bad." Inventions like computers, vaccines and engines have benefitted humanity within the past 100 years alone.

As for homosexuality, even if it was unnatural (which it's not), that would not be good enough of a reason to ban anybody from getting married due to their sexuality alone. You might as well ban transexuals or men who had vasectomies from getting married too, since they are not "natural."

I'm not attacking you, by the way. I'm just using your post as a stepping stool for my own arguement.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]

There are plenty of factors suggesting that it is biological, whether it be genes or body chemistry. Gay men are more likely to have a hair whorl that twists in the opposite direction to straight men, they are more likely to have shorter ring finger and have different sexual responses in their brain.

LJS9502_basic

Aye. When people wonder if something's natural, they always veer towards genetics, and that is I guess a decent avenue of thought, but it being a biological abnormality is (in my "relatively uneducated in the biological field" opinion) just as realistic.

I mean, they can't find a gene for causing homosexuality, but they can see consistent biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That's enough evidence for me that it's natural, especially combined with a severe lack of evidence that it's "a choice" :P

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

[QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

Red-XIII

And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.

Hmmm let's see, serial killers harm other people. Homosexuals harm who exactly?

Ok I have another analogy a pedophile feels that having sex with children is natural, but if a 14 year old girl consents to have sex with someone thats 31 will we allow it just because a couple of people feel that sex with children is ok.

[QUOTE="Aquat1cF1sh"]

Homosexuality is natural... It's just that the majority of people are straight so people assume since it's uncommon that it's unnatural. It's just like being left-handed. >_>

[/coming from a Psychology student]

Also, as for gay marriage, I don't think religion should play this big a part in the way our country runs, yet it does, sadly... If religious people are against it then fine, ban it from your church. But there are legal benefits to it that fit under the defintion of marriage that's more law-based than religion-based... And as for the unreligious people who are against it, I have no idea. Maybe they assume it's unnatural or something.

-Jiggles-

Whether or not it's unnatural is irrelevant either way, since something being natural does not automatically mean it's "good." Diseases like polio and smallpox are natural, but are those considered good? What about natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes?

Also, just because something is unnatural (artificial) doesn't mean it's "bad." Inventions like computers, vaccines and engines have benefitted humanity within the past 100 years alone.

As for homosexuality, even if it was unnatural (which it's not), that would not be good enough of a reason to ban anybody from getting married due to their sexuality alone. You might as well ban transexuals or men who had vasectomies from getting married too, since they are not "natural."

I'm not attacking you, by the way. I'm just using your post as a stepping stool for my own arguement.

Sorry if I implied that because it's natural means that it's a good reason to allow them to marry, I was just posting that to all the people in here who think of it as unnatural or "not-how-it-should-be".

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

Ace_WondersX

And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.

Hmmm let's see, serial killers harm other people. Homosexuals harm who exactly?

Ok I have another analogy a pedophile feels that having sex with children is natural, but if a 14 year old girl consents to have sex with someone thats 31 will we allow it just because a couple of people feel that sex with children is ok.

if the girl agrees, what's the problem. 14 is old enough to make that decision, I know when I was 14 I could choose wisely when it came to sexual things

the problem is when someone is forced against their will, which we call rape

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

I_Am_Sexy

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

I_Am_Sexy

And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.

Hmmm let's see, serial killers harm other people. Homosexuals harm who exactly?

Ok I have another analogy a pedophile feels that having sex with children is natural, but if a 14 year old girl consents to have sex with someone thats 31 will we allow it just because a couple of people feel that sex with children is ok.

if the girl agrees, what's the problem. 14 is old enough to make that decision, I know when I was 14 I could choose wisely when it came to sexual things

the problem is when someone is forced against their will, which we call rape

Well i'm pretty sure most people in the U.S. feel it is never ok for a 14 year old girl to be having sex with someone thats 31.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

LJS9502_basic

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

Well i'm pretty sure most people in the U.S. feel it is never ok for a 14 year old girl to be having sex with someone thats 14.

Ace_WondersX

because when people become adults, they get stupid and forget what it was like to be a kid

kids never get enough credit from adults

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

I_Am_Sexy

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

I_Am_Sexy

And murdering is natural to serial killers (and no I'm not comparing the two, just making a point). Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's just my opinion. That's what's great about this country is we can vote on such things. That's how laws work here. Gay marriage, or marriage period, is not a constitutional right so it can be voted on and decided by the people. It's a great thing.

Hmmm let's see, serial killers harm other people. Homosexuals harm who exactly?

Ok I have another analogy a pedophile feels that having sex with children is natural, but if a 14 year old girl consents to have sex with someone thats 31 will we allow it just because a couple of people feel that sex with children is ok.

if the girl agrees, what's the problem. 14 is old enough to make that decision, I know when I was 14 I could choose wisely when it came to sexual things

the problem is when someone is forced against their will, which we call rape

No, it's not. The mind of a 14 year old adolescent is still maturing and the abundance of hormones being flushed around the body affect emotion and judgement. If somebody is choosing to have sex at the age of 14, male or female, they are not making a mature, thought-out decision, for both them and their partner (especially considering if the person is 18 years of age or older; if such is the case, it is Statutory Rape and is a serious crime, despite if the teenager wanted it or not).

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

LJS9502_basic

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

No, it's not. The mind of a 14 year old adolescent is still maturing and the abundance of hormones being flushed around the body affect emotion and judgement. If somebody is choosing to have sex at the age of 14, male or female, they are not making a mature, thought-out decision, for both them and their partner (especially considering if the person is 18 years of age or older; if such is the case, it is Statutory Rape and is a serious crime, despite if the teenager wanted it or not).

-Jiggles-

LOL is that what you were taught

LOLZ :roll:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

I_Am_Sexy

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

Many areas of quantum mechanics are not normal.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

-Jiggles-

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

Many areas of quantum mechanics are not normal.

you need to open your mind, that's all I have to say

maybe some things are unusual, but everything is normal

some things just don't happen as often, but that doesn't make it unnatural

some things might be occuring less often by design, ever think of that LOL

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

homosexuality is normal because it exists

/thread

LOL I always wanted to say /thread

I_Am_Sexy

the truth is never a bad argument, sonny boy

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

Many areas of quantum mechanics are not normal.

you need to open your mind, that's all I have to say

maybe some things are unusual, but everything is normal

some things just don't happen as often, but that doesn't make it unnatural

some things might be occuring less often by design, ever think of that LOL

Here is the first and second definition of Normal provided by http://www.dictionary.com/:

1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.serving to establish a standard.

If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that nothing about it is "conforming to the standard of the common type."

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

I_Am_Sexy

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

yes, if something exists, then it is normal, otherwise it wouldn't exist

pretty simple

human beings are the ones who imagined all this "crazy" stuff

but just because something is normal doesn't mean it's positive

murder is normal, because it happens, it's obviously a normal thing it happens every day, not just with people but in the animal kingdom too, it might be hard to accept but it's the truth. doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it most definately is normal

LJS9502_basic

see that's what I mean, humans created all this division, and labels for things

it's still a normal thing if it's there

our education is a joke, break the mold and re-learn everything

Here is the first and second definition of Normal provided by http://www.dictionary.com/:

1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.serving to establish a standard.

If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that nothing about it is "conforming to the standard of the common type."

-Jiggles-

definitions can change over time

nothing is set in stone

like I said, open your mind

standards are felxible as well, in refernece to the second definition, it's all based upon what is accepted, as soon as less occuring things are accepted as being normal but just happening less often, they will also be accepted as normal, and will probably make their way into your precious little dictionary

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

Here is the first and second definition of Normal provided by http://www.dictionary.com/:

1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.serving to establish a standard.

If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that nothing about it is "conforming to the standard of the common type."

I_Am_Sexy

definitions can change over time

nothing is set in stone

like I said, open your mind

standards are felxible as well, in refernece to the second definition, it's all based upon what is accepted, as soon as less occuring things are accepted as being normal but just happening less often, they will also be accepted as normal, and will probably make their way into your precious little dictionary

So... you're denying a valid source of information because of your own personal opinion?

My definition is up-to-date and so is my arguement on quantum physics, so you're not getting anywhere with your arguement. Again I say, quantum mechanics do not conform to regular scientific standards, and telling me to "open my mind" will do nothing to disprove my arguement otherwise.

As for nothing being "set in stone", the same could be said for your own arguement about everything existing being normal. The evidence used to back up a certain claim is what differs between something being accepted and something being rejected, and, quite frankly, you haven't provided any evidence to prove that everything that exists is normal.

see that's what I mean, humans created all this division, and labels for things

it's still a normal thing if it's there

our education is a joke, break the mold and re-learn everything

I_Am_Sexy

And just because something exists does not make it normal. A baby born with it's heart outside it's chest exists...but it's not normal and surgery had to be done to correct it.