The G@y Moralist: Every Anti-G@y Excuse Debunked in Eight Minutes

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"]I know what your getting at, but the idea that because I sin doesn't necessarily make another thing right. The bible says eating shellfish is wrong, but that doesn't automatically equate to homosexuality being a non-sin. In Biblical times, it may have been acceptable to stone someone. Just because I don't stone someone doesn't mean I feel that what they are doing is right. If the Bible requested I killed homosexuals in the same fashion (as lets say someone who blasphemes) I wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean I think it's ok to lay with the same sex. Watch_My_6

And you base your position of "the punishment doesn't still count, but the offense still does" on... what, exactly?

I'm sorry, but that is a complete nonanswer. From what, specifically, do you derive the idea that the punishment doesn't count anymore? "Common sense" is a meaningless phrase, and "practicality" is nonsensical - to stone someone, you just pick up a stone and bash their head in; nothing could be easier, not to mention that nobody in the Bible ever said that "practicality" is a valid reason to willingly disobey God. Leviticus says to stone everyone who curses God. Period. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you follow God and yet openly, consciously refuse to do something that the Bible specifically and unequivocally tells you to do.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm sorry, but that is a complete nonanswer. From what, specifically, do you derive the idea that the punishment doesn't count anymore? "Common sense" is a meaningless phrase, and "practicality" is nonsensical - to stone someone, you just pick up a stone and bash their head in; nothing could be easier, not to mention that nobody in the Bible ever said that "practicality" is a valid reason to willingly disobey God. Leviticus says to stone everyone who curses God. Period. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you follow God and yet openly, consciously refuse to do something that the Bible specifically and unequivocally tells you to do.

Watch_My_6

Again. From what, specifically, do you derive that idea? The fact that you don't want to stone someone?

Here, let me quote the passage again and color-code it:

"Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. ...Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible;anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death."

The text in green is regarding the general sinful nature of the action. The text in red is regarding the punishment that should be brought upon an offender.

Now, I haven't tallied the total here, but there seems to be an awful lot of red in there for a passage that you claim is not geared towards the punishment. In fact, it seems to me that almost the entire passage is geared towards the punishment.

So, I ask again: from what, specifically, do you derive the idea that this passage is not geared towards the punishment?

I seriously agree with almost everything Gabu says in almost every thread. If I ever wanted someone on my side in a debate I would definitely pick him and I don't even know beyond his posts in OT.:P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]So, I ask again: from what, specifically, do you derive the idea that this passage is not geared towards the punishment?

Watch_My_6

"Take ... outside the camp"

"stone him"

"put to death"

"stone them"

"put to death"

And you respond:

the intent of the passage is to show how serious blaspheme in the name of God is.

Watch_My_6

What is this based on? You have not offered one single shred of evidence other than vague, meaningless phrases. The passage is prefaced by a boy blaspheming God, and then his parents consult with Moses to determine what his fate should be. And then, after God says what I quoted you, they then promptly proceed to stone the boy to death, as instructed. You claim this passage is not primarily concerned with what the punishment should be, despite the fact that that is the entire purpose for which Moses consulted with God. Moses went to God to ask what the punishment should be, and what I quoted was the response.

[QUOTE="Tetrarch9"][QUOTE="xsynth"] How exactly is it unsafe for gays to be in the military?TINYOWNSYOU

Shouldn't people in the military have the maturity not to assault other people in the military, for any reason at all?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]

So......... Problem?

ChampionoChumps

Your attempt at trolling needs work. :P

Edit: In all seriousness though, homosexuality disgusts me and even if it wasn't against my religious beliefs it would still disgust me. When I see any homosexual acts between two men I cringe or feel the need to vomit.

I watched half that video and it has obvious errors with logic so i wouldnt consider it debunking anything. First he promotes sodomy which is a bit gross then he uses fallacious rhetorical analogies to present an exact arguement copying the argument that homosexuality is counter productive to evolution which in fact is true. This type of copy cat argumentation doesn't prove logic and is an invalid way to pose a correct argument.

I watched half that video and it has obvious errors with logic so i wouldnt consider it debunking anything. First he promotes sodomy which is a bit gross then he uses fallacious rhetorical analogies to present an exact arguement copying the argument that homosexuality is counter productive to evolution which in fact is true. This type of copy cat argumentation doesn't prove logic and is an invalid way to pose a correct argument.

Montaya

I'm not sure if those words you're using mean what you think they mean. :P

Homosexuality is wrong. And I hold to that.

GabuEx, if this were Facebook, I'd be clicking "Like" on all of your comments in this thread. :) You're doing a really good job responding to people in your posts.

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

The fact that God destroyed an entire nation (both in the Holy Bible and Noble Quran) because they were homosexuals should be enough proof of how wrong it is to be a sodomite.

I can't believe there are Religious people here trying to argue otherwise :?

The fact that God destroyed an entire nation (both in the Holy Bible and Noble Quran) because they were homosexuals should be enough proof of how wrong it is to be a sodomite.

I can't believe there are Religious people here trying to argue otherwise :?

SpinoRaptor24

Point me to the passage that says "because they were homosexuals".

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

The fact that God destroyed an entire nation (both in the Holy Bible and Noble Quran) because they were homosexuals should be enough proof of how wrong it is to be a sodomite.

I can't believe there are Religious people here trying to argue otherwise :?

GabuEx

Point me to the passage that says "because they were homosexuals".

Genesis 19: 1-13

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."

"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

Now according to Ezekiel 16:49-50 it says

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Detestable was also used in Leviticus 18:22, 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

So homosexuality wasn't the only reason, but Jude 7 says

7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Although the inhabitants of Sodom were guilty for other sins homosexuality was the reason God poured down the fiery sulfur onto the city. Although homosexuality wasn't exclusively the sin that God detested them for.

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

MgamerBD

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

Bourbons3

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

Teenaged

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

MgamerBD

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

Bourbons3

No.

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

coltsfan4ever

Ha,ha,ha, I think about halfway in he forgot he was making a video and got too into playing with the food.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="MgamerBD"]

I'm tired of all these gay threads. Same sex marriage is wrong and should not be permitted. It is against the bible and everything natural.

As this video proves: The most logical argument against same sex marriage ever

Sinful all of you are. I hope they all burn in the pits of Hades as this video proves. Argue against it. I dare you.

Hatiko

No.

There's no "no" answer here since what you bolded doesnt need an answer to begin with. Its a fact.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Homosexuality is natural, it exists in nature. Marriage, however, isn't natural - it was created by man. Marriage is a legal union, and with separation of church of state, the government shouldn't care what it says in the Bible - which, in any case, is completely false.Teenaged

No.

There's no "no" answer here since what you bolded doesnt need an answer to begin with. Its a fact.

Please show me where we can find the "fact" that there is a "seperation of church and state."

Homosexuality is wrong. And I hold to that.

J-man45

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

No.

Hatiko

There's no "no" answer here since what you bolded doesnt need an answer to begin with. Its a fact.

Please show me where we can find the "fact" that there is a "seperation of church and state."

The separation of church and state is evident by the fact that at least for the largest part, the government cant interfere with matters of the church (for instance no church is forced to marry homosexuals in states that homosexual marriage is legal) and that the church cant interfere with the laws that have nothing to do with the church specifically (for instance the church itself cant impose its morals through laws).

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Leviticus explicitly instructs not only that adultery is bad, but also prescribes the punishment, which is death by stoning carried out by humans. If you don't stone adulterers to death, then you are not following the word of God, if indeed you believe that books like Leviticus are still applicable today.

GabuEx

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)

It doesn't really get much clearer than that. Rather than asking around at your church, why not just read the Bible? :?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What "no"?

There's no "no" answer here since what you bolded doesnt need an answer to begin with. Its a fact.

Teenaged

Please show me where we can find the "fact" that there is a "seperation of church and state."

The separation of church and state is evident by the fact that at least for the largest part, the government cant interfere with matters of the church (for instance no church is forced to marry homosexuals in states that homosexual marriage is legal) and that the church cant interfere with the laws that have nothing to do with the church specifically (for instance the church itself cant impose its morals through laws).

I'm not kidding. Where does it say anywhere that the chuch can't interfere in the government? Laws are based off of Biblical teachings. The fact that not every state doesn't allow gay marriage is one way the church has influenced the government.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Please show me where we can find the "fact" that there is a "seperation of church and state."

Hatiko

The separation of church and state is evident by the fact that at least for the largest part, the government cant interfere with matters of the church (for instance no church is forced to marry homosexuals in states that homosexual marriage is legal) and that the church cant interfere with the laws that have nothing to do with the church specifically (for instance the church itself cant impose its morals through laws).

I'm not kidding. Where does it say anywhere that the chuch can't interfere in the government? Laws are based off of Biblical teachings. The fact that not every state doesn't allow gay marriage is one way the church has influenced the government.

So the church most of the times doesnt directly influence the government and the government most definitely doesnt change laws just because the church wants too. The people have to agree too, since they are the ones who vote for government.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]You're kidding...

The separation of church and state is evident by the fact that at least for the largest part, the government cant interfere with matters of the church (for instance no church is forced to marry homosexuals in states that homosexual marriage is legal) and that the church cant interfere with the laws that have nothing to do with the church specifically (for instance the church itself cant impose its morals through laws).

Teenaged

I'm not kidding. Where does it say anywhere that the chuch can't interfere in the government? Laws are based off of Biblical teachings. The fact that not every state doesn't allow gay marriage is one way the church has influenced the government.

So the church most of the times doesnt directly influence the government and the government most definitely doesnt change laws just because the church wants too. The people have to agree too, since they are the ones who vote for government.

But that doesn't mean that the church couldn't if they wanted too. But government has taken the place of the church unlike in the old days so it is highly unlikely as the roles have changed.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

I'm not kidding. Where does it say anywhere that the chuch can't interfere in the government? Laws are based off of Biblical teachings. The fact that not every state doesn't allow gay marriage is one way the church has influenced the government.

Hatiko

So the church most of the times doesnt directly influence the government and the government most definitely doesnt change laws just because the church wants too. The people have to agree too, since they are the ones who vote for government.

But that doesn't mean that the church couldn't if they wanted too. But government has taken the place of the church unlike in the old days so it is highly unlikely as the roles have changed.

I dont understand the point you're making in the second sentence.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The church itself though still hasnt imposed those laws. Just because some laws coincide with some morals of the Bible doesnt mean that the church has imposed them through its religious authority. It means that people collectively agree with them (or the majority of them agrees with them) and thus have been part of society, which means its part of many people's ideals.

So the church most of the times doesnt directly influence the government and the government most definitely doesnt change laws just because the church wants too. The people have to agree too, since they are the ones who vote for government.

Teenaged

But that doesn't mean that the church couldn't if they wanted too. But government has taken the place of the church unlike in the old days so it is highly unlikely as the roles have changed.

I dont understand the point you're making in the second sentence.

I'm saying that since we now have government to regulate matters. The fact isn't that the church has ever passed a law it's that there is no that says they can't. While first amendment keeps the government out of the churhc there is not that keeps the church out of the government. Then we became a democracy and now the church has to influence the people because in the past the leaders were God fearing people and they would usually side with the Church but now there are struggling beliefs among people and leaders don't act on their religious beliefs.

So I'm saying that there isn't a seperation of church and state.

Edit: At least on a legal level.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

But that doesn't mean that the church couldn't if they wanted too. But government has taken the place of the church unlike in the old days so it is highly unlikely as the roles have changed.

Hatiko

I dont understand the point you're making in the second sentence.

I'm saying that since we now have government to regulate matters. The fact isn't that the church has ever passed a law it's that there is no that says they can't. While first amendment keeps the government out of the churhc there is not that keeps the church out of the government. Then we became a democracy and now the church has to influence the people because in the past the leaders were God fearing people and they would usually side with the Church but now there are struggling beliefs among people and leaders don't act on their religious beliefs.

So I'm saying that there isn't a seperation of church and state.

Edit: At least on a legal level.

There is no separation of church and state because:

• The church can still influence laws indirectly

Assuming a literal interpretation of the term and refuting it doesnt say much. The separation of church and state doesnt mean that the two (church and state) never interact and dont influence each other in any way. It simply means that a) the church isnt a legal authority and cant form laws as such and b) the government cant interfere within the church and the way it is run (unless human rights are violated I suppose).

• The fact that the church cant form laws is just an inevitability that stems from the way the regime has changed from past theocratic regimes

Ok that doesnt say much either. It doesnt refute the fact that the church cant directly form laws as a legal authority.

____

If someone thinks they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state they are welcome to correct me.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Show me an example where the church directly formed a law just because it wanted to, and not because the people also wanted to.

I dont understand the point you're making in the second sentence.

Teenaged

I'm saying that since we now have government to regulate matters. The fact isn't that the church has ever passed a law it's that there is no that says they can't. While first amendment keeps the government out of the churhc there is not that keeps the church out of the government. Then we became a democracy and now the church has to influence the people because in the past the leaders were God fearing people and they would usually side with the Church but now there are struggling beliefs among people and leaders don't act on their religious beliefs.

So I'm saying that there isn't a seperation of church and state.

Edit: At least on a legal level.

There is no separation of church and state because:

• The church can still influence laws indirectly

Assuming a literal interpretation of the term and refuting it doesnt say much. The separation of church and state doesnt mean that the two (church and state) never interact and dont influence each other in any way. It simply means that a) the church isnt a legal authority and cant form laws as such and b) the government cant interfere within the church and the way it is run (unless human rights are violated I suppose).

• The fact that the church cant form laws is just an inevitability that stems from the way the regime has changed from past theocratic regimes

Ok that doesnt say much either. It doesnt refute the fact that the church cant directly form laws as a legal authority.

____

If someone thinks they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state they are welcome to correct me.

Then why were words like "Under God" put into the pledge. And why did Kennedy's Inaugural Speech mention God, and a higher power to guide them. If there was a true seperation of church and state these things would never intermingle. Government officials wouldn't mention religious things as it would be intermingling.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

I'm saying that since we now have government to regulate matters. The fact isn't that the church has ever passed a law it's that there is no that says they can't. While first amendment keeps the government out of the churhc there is not that keeps the church out of the government. Then we became a democracy and now the church has to influence the people because in the past the leaders were God fearing people and they would usually side with the Church but now there are struggling beliefs among people and leaders don't act on their religious beliefs.

So I'm saying that there isn't a seperation of church and state.

Edit: At least on a legal level.

Hatiko

There is no separation of church and state because:

• The church can still influence laws indirectly

Assuming a literal interpretation of the term and refuting it doesnt say much. The separation of church and state doesnt mean that the two (church and state) never interact and dont influence each other in any way. It simply means that a) the church isnt a legal authority and cant form laws as such and b) the government cant interfere within the church and the way it is run (unless human rights are violated I suppose).

• The fact that the church cant form laws is just an inevitability that stems from the way the regime has changed from past theocratic regimes

Ok that doesnt say much either. It doesnt refute the fact that the church cant directly form laws as a legal authority.

____

If someone thinks they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state they are welcome to correct me.

Then why were words like "Under God" put into the pledge. And why did Kennedy's Inaugural Speech mention God, and a higher power to guide them. If there was a true seperation of church and state these things would never intermingle. Government officials wouldn't mention religious things as it would be intermingling.

Ceremonial things like "under god" into the pledge are irrelevant, if they dont reflect what is actually going on in the country (and this one doesnt since there are plenty of atheists in the USA and have the same rights; they arent stripped from them because the pledge says "one nation under god").

Politician speeches can mention anything to gain the favour of the public. Kennedy, I am sure, was addressing a crowd that was predominantly Christian. American society still is predominantly Christian afaik.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]So your arguments are:

There is no separation of church and state because:

• The church can still influence laws indirectly

Assuming a literal interpretation of the term and refuting it doesnt say much. The separation of church and state doesnt mean that the two (church and state) never interact and dont influence each other in any way. It simply means that a) the church isnt a legal authority and cant form laws as such and b) the government cant interfere within the church and the way it is run (unless human rights are violated I suppose).

• The fact that the church cant form laws is just an inevitability that stems from the way the regime has changed from past theocratic regimes

Ok that doesnt say much either. It doesnt refute the fact that the church cant directly form laws as a legal authority.

____

If someone thinks they have a better understanding of the separation of church and state they are welcome to correct me.

Teenaged

Then why were words like "Under God" put into the pledge. And why did Kennedy's Inaugural Speech mention God, and a higher power to guide them. If there was a true seperation of church and state these things would never intermingle. Government officials wouldn't mention religious things as it would be intermingling.

Ceremonial things like "under god" into the pledge are irrelevant, if they dont reflect what is actually going on in the country (and this one doesnt since there are plenty of atheists in the USA and have the same rights; they arent stripped from them because the pledge says "one nation under god").

Politician speeches can mention anything to gain the favour of the public. Kennedy, I am sure, was addressing a crowd that was predominantly Christian. American society still is predominantly Christian afaik.

Why can't I take it literally though? shouldn't it mean what it says? The only document with the words "seperation of church and state" are from an old soviet document.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Then why were words like "Under God" put into the pledge. And why did Kennedy's Inaugural Speech mention God, and a higher power to guide them. If there was a true seperation of church and state these things would never intermingle. Government officials wouldn't mention religious things as it would be intermingling.

Hatiko

Ceremonial things like "under god" into the pledge are irrelevant, if they dont reflect what is actually going on in the country (and this one doesnt since there are plenty of atheists in the USA and have the same rights; they arent stripped from them because the pledge says "one nation under god").

Politician speeches can mention anything to gain the favour of the public. Kennedy, I am sure, was addressing a crowd that was predominantly Christian. American society still is predominantly Christian afaik.

Why can't I take it literally though? shouldn't it mean what it says? The only document with the words "seperation of church and state" are from an old soviet document.

If the short title of said "rule" was to be literally accurate then it would run for a paragraph at least. Its just the title. You'll find that most such titles are short and dont include all the details (such as "freedom of speech"). Details though which are important.

Argue against the "innacurate" title all you want. The fact remains that for the most part the "rule" that is widely knows as "separation of church and state" and everything that it entails is applied. The end.

it emotionally harms society. example on emotional harm; Would u give a pedophile pictures (innocent normal pictures) of your kids? why?Mystery_Writer

I would not. The reason i wouldn't is the hypothetical emotional bond with my children urging me to protect them from danger, and the unethical aspects that pedophelia bring up. Which are not present in homosexuality. Like the lack of informed consent.

What is emotional harm to a society?

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]it emotionally harms society. example on emotional harm; Would u give a pedophile pictures (innocent normal pictures) of your kids? why?_Tobli_

I would not. The reason i wouldn't is the hypothetical emotional bond with my children urging me to protect them from danger, and the unethical aspects that pedophelia bring up. Which are not present in homosexuality. Like the lack of informed consent.

What is emotional harm to a society?

the thought of some gay kid doing a kid of yours (same age, full concent from your kid) doesn't emotionally harm you?

also, why pedophilia unethical? it's also uncontrolled emotions towards children. However, acting on those emotions/urges is unethical.

Before arguing, consider this: if your parents were gay none of you reading this right now would exist. Shame-usBlackley

Even if the entire population was homosexual, there is still artificial insemination and adoption.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Before arguing, consider this: if your parents were gay none of you reading this right now would exist. Teenaged

Even if the entire population was homosexual, there is still artificial insemination and adoption.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Before arguing, consider this: if your parents were gay none of you reading this right now would exist. Shame-usBlackley

Even if the entire population was homosexual, there is still artificial insemination and adoption.

We defy evolution in many different ways.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Not necessarily.

Even if the entire population was homosexual, there is still artificial insemination and adoption.

Teenaged

We defy evolution in many different ways.

the thought of some gay kid doing a kid of yours (same age, full concent from your kid) doesn't emotionally harm you?

also, why pedophilia unethical? it's also uncontrolled emotions towards children. However, acting on those emotions/urges is unethical.

Mystery_Writer

Informed consent means a matured understanding of matter, adulthood, etc. If i had a had a kid that i considered befitting of that definition i wouldn't mind at all. I don't see how that could harm me.

"Uncontrolled emotions towards children"

The difference is the bolded part. With homosexuals we are talking about adults doing consentual acts. The same way heterosexual relations are seperated from pedophelia.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"] Scientifically-speaking, they can do just about anything. That does not get around the fact that it is not using the equipment as intended, be it by God or natural evolution, and that's what my post was directed at.Shame-usBlackley

We defy evolution in many different ways.

I never denied two men (or two women) cant reproduce with sex, and it doesnt even matter. My point stands.