The number one reason why Same-sex Marriage should absolutely be allowed.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

BluRayHiDef

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.Nuck81

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]If it's not natural then where does it come from? Why is it that homosexuality has been documented in over 1000 animals?

MrPraline

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

BluRayHiDef

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

If a variation of a gene can persist in species' development history for millions of years, not having reproductive advantage yet still not being wiped out, in fact a consistent portion of population have this genetic variation throughout history, that must mean it has some other type of evolutionary advantage.

Evolution isn't just about reproductive advantage, in fact, a high reproductive success without restriction can be detrimental to a species.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Ncsoftlover

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

If a variation of a gene can persist in species' development history for millions of years, not having reproductive advantage yet still not being wiped out, in fact a consistent portion of population have this genetic variation throughout history, that must mean it has some other type of evolutionary advantage.

Evolution isn't just about reproductive advantage, in fact, a high reproductive success without restriction can be detrimental to a species.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

Ncsoftlover

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

Actually, when gay couple adopt, they've made the decision to embrace a child into their lives, that means 100% of time, they are willing to take a baby that they don't have to, they're mentally ready to be parents, and they have the financial means to raise a child, at least, the adoption agency will make sure of that.

Can you say this is 100% true for all straight couples who are having children? there are accidental pregnancies when they're not mentally or financially ready for the baby, and there are irresponsible parents who keeps pumping out babies for state benefit (in europe at least), can you honestly stay that on average, gay couples provide a worse environment for children to grow up?

Oh there are no doubt some nasty straight couples out there who should't be raising kids, I know that. But science has shown that not having both a father AND mother figure in childhood can lead to some difficulties. For instance children raised without a father are more likely to develop ADD or ADHD, they are also more likely to become addicted to drugs and other things.

Conversely children raised without mothers are more likely to be more aloof and less caring, they are also more likely to be bullies. Of course this isn't always the case as there are plenty of children who grow up perfectly fine despite not having both parents, but to deny that it doesn't have some issues is just wrong.

It's kind of like children who are breast fed by their own mothers, they tend to be healthier then children who are breast fed by a different woman or a bottle. These things do matter.

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

ShadowMoses900

Actually, when gay couple adopt, they've made the decision to embrace a child into their lives, that means 100% of time, they are willing to take a baby that they don't have to, they're mentally ready to be parents, and they have the financial means to raise a child, at least, the adoption agency will make sure of that.

Can you say this is 100% true for all straight couples who are having children? there are accidental pregnancies when they're not mentally or financially ready for the baby, and there are irresponsible parents who keeps pumping out babies for state benefit (in europe at least), can you honestly stay that on average, gay couples provide a worse environment for children to grow up?

Oh there are no doubt some nasty straight couples out there who should't be raising kids, I know that. But science has shown that not having both a father AND mother figure in childhood can lead to some difficulties. For instance children raised without a father are more likely to develop ADD or ADHD, they are also more likely to become addicted to drugs and other things.

Conversely children raised without mothers are more likely to be more aloof and less caring, they are also more likely to be bullies. Of course this isn't always the case as there are plenty of children who grow up perfectly fine despite not having both parents, but to deny that it doesn't have some issues is just wrong.

It's kind of like children who are breast fed by their own mothers, they tend to be healthier then children who are breast fed by a different woman or a bottle. These things do matter.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

Actually, when gay couple adopt, they've made the decision to embrace a child into their lives, that means 100% of time, they are willing to take a baby that they don't have to, they're mentally ready to be parents, and they have the financial means to raise a child, at least, the adoption agency will make sure of that.

Can you say this is 100% true for all straight couples who are having children? there are accidental pregnancies when they're not mentally or financially ready for the baby, and there are irresponsible parents who keeps pumping out babies for state benefit (in europe at least), can you honestly stay that on average, gay couples provide a worse environment for children to grow up?

SaintWalrus

Oh there are no doubt some nasty straight couples out there who should't be raising kids, I know that. But science has shown that not having both a father AND mother figure in childhood can lead to some difficulties. For instance children raised without a father are more likely to develop ADD or ADHD, they are also more likely to become addicted to drugs and other things.

Conversely children raised without mothers are more likely to be more aloof and less caring, they are also more likely to be bullies. Of course this isn't always the case as there are plenty of children who grow up perfectly fine despite not having both parents, but to deny that it doesn't have some issues is just wrong.

It's kind of like children who are breast fed by their own mothers, they tend to be healthier then children who are breast fed by a different woman or a bottle. These things do matter.

they are also more likely to be bullies. ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

Riverwolf007

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

worlock77

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

Oh well sh*t, if National Geographic says it's so it must be so.

I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source. But it is wise to question things I supposed and they have been wrong on things before. Like when they said we would all be under water by the year 2005 because of global warming and life would be like water world.

And lately they have been annoying with all their alien conspirecy crap just like History Channel and Discovery Channel are doing. But still overall I think they are a good source, obviously not a perfect one (no one is). But their study seemed quite accurate.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

SaintWalrus

Besides I'm sure somewhere two guys are having sex right now. So it is a common occurance since there will always be gay people at any given time.

EDIT: Sorry i read that as "Isn't" lesdixia ftw!

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

BluRayHiDef

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

What makes you think Cancer and genetic disease aren't natural? some individuals are disadvantaged in success of survival, that's totally natural, in fact, if a population of a species has everyone completely equal in competitiveness, that'd be unnatural.

A disease is perfectly natural, in fact, if you think about it, genetic disease exist more often with inbreeding for the purpose of discouraging inbreeding and that promote genetic variation,which may help the survival of a species, there, that's shows genetic illness may have a evolutionary purpose.

The existence of a phenemenon does make it naturally exist, it just doesn't mean it's pleasant.

for homosexuality though, it's quite pleasant, and it's not a illness in the sense that it's not detrimental to health at all, so don't even start comparing a variation, (like left handedness) to a disease.

Of course this isn't always the case as there are plenty of children who grow up perfectly fine despite not having both parents, but to deny that it doesn't have some issues is just wrong.ShadowMoses900

I love how you admit that plenty of people turn out just fine despite not having one male and one female parent, then in the next breath insist that it will cause issues.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

nedim100

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

Yeah i think having mixed gender parents is ideal because a child should have role models of both genders.Its not impossible for gays or even single parents to raise kids,but as you said it might have some nasty consequences.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]they are also more likely to be bullies. MrPraline

That's quite a generalisation, there are many different types of conservaties. They arn't evil, the idea is simply small governement and upholding cultural traditions. Nothing wrong with that. It's only wrong IMO when they try to push those traditional values on others.

And not everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot.

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

SaintWalrus

If a variation of a gene can persist in species' development history for millions of years, not having reproductive advantage yet still not being wiped out, in fact a consistent portion of population have this genetic variation throughout history, that must mean it has some other type of evolutionary advantage.

Evolution isn't just about reproductive advantage, in fact, a high reproductive success without restriction can be detrimental to a species.

it could very well be, but then again that's a more of less a stereotype.

I give you another 80% true stereotype, gay people are naturally inclined to be artistic, that balance out aggressiveness of the society , and provided a science/art balance that's beneficial to the society's funtionality.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]they are also more likely to be bullies. ShadowMoses900

That's quite a generalisation, there are many different types of conservaties. They arn't evil, the idea is simply small governement and upholding cultural traditions. Nothing wrong with that. It's only wrong IMO when they try to push those traditional values on others.

And not everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.ShadowMoses900

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] ok but homosexuality is natural meow meowKC_Hokie

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

ShadowMoses900

Oh well sh*t, if National Geographic says it's so it must be so.

I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source. But it is wise to question things I supposed and they have been wrong on things before. Like when they said we would all be under water by the year 2005 because of global warming and life would be like water world.

And lately they have been annoying with all their alien conspirecy crap just like History Channel and Discovery Channel are doing. But still overall I think they are a good source, obviously not a perfect one (no one is). But their study seemed quite accurate.

National Geographic is not without its merits, but it is not a scientific publication. Nor is it peer-reviewed. It is often sensationalist in it's editing and frequently dumbs science down to appeal to the masses (case in point: a recent issue perpetuating the myth of the "missing link").

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

ShadowMoses900

Oh well sh*t, if National Geographic says it's so it must be so.

I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source. But it is wise to question things I supposed and they have been wrong on things before. Like when they said we would all be under water by the year 2005 because of global warming and life would be like water world.

And lately they have been annoying with all their alien conspirecy crap just like History Channel and Discovery Channel are doing. But still overall I think they are a good source, obviously not a perfect one (no one is). But their study seemed quite accurate.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] No, what makes it natural is if it's a common occurance Which homosexuality is. /pointtoast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Terrible argument. That's like saying pedophiles and murders are 'natural' because they have occurred throughout the world and throughout history.KC_Hokie

Then please explain what makes it unnatural.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Oh well sh*t, if National Geographic says it's so it must be so.

kingkong0124

I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source. But it is wise to question things I supposed and they have been wrong on things before. Like when they said we would all be under water by the year 2005 because of global warming and life would be like water world.

And lately they have been annoying with all their alien conspirecy crap just like History Channel and Discovery Channel are doing. But still overall I think they are a good source, obviously not a perfect one (no one is). But their study seemed quite accurate.

Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

worlock77

Haven't you heard? Homosexuality is highly contagious! You think it's just a coincidence that all those hair stylists are such big sodomy enthusiasts? NO! At first, most of them are manly, Christ-fearing heterosexual men who just want to have a career that involves tons of fashion sense and getting high on hair products. But then they spend all that time with homosexuals and they catch all the gheyniss and it's game over for them.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

Riverwolf007

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

That article just says that not all the wolves found mates so they took up to rasing cubs and taking care of the female ones when their male partners were gone or died. Some of them paired up with other male wolves, but at no point does it suggest they are gay nor does it mean they are gay.

We as humans may see a male dog mount another male dog as gay but in reality it's simply a male dog exterting dominance over the other. It doens't mean they are gay at all.

Homesexuality in animals is simply misunderstandings, people misinterpeting it. If they learn about animal behaviors they would know differently. And besides that's a terrible argument, just because animals do something doesn't make it ok. Animals also kill their young and eat the dead bodies of their pack, does that make it ok for us to do that too?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Maybe pedophilia is natural. Not relevant though because the problem with it is that it harms children, not that it's "unnatural".

toast_burner

Then please explain what makes it unnatural.

So just because something happens and always has doesn't also automatically make it 'natural'.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]they are also more likely to be bullies. ShadowMoses900

That's quite a generalisation, there are many different types of conservaties. They arn't evil, the idea is simply small governement and upholding cultural traditions. Nothing wrong with that. It's only wrong IMO when they try to push those traditional values on others.

And not everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] No, what makes it natural is if it's a common occurance Which homosexuality is. /pointtoast_burner

I won't bother finding the original post.

Pedophilia is natural because it's a sexual paraphilia, a sexual urge that naturally happens is perfectly natural, it may be condemned by the society, but that is a social construct, what's considered a crime now may be perfectly normal in some other cultural, or before civilization.

the reason pedophilia is natural is you're inclined to be attracted to youth for reproductive success right, not hard to figure out.

Murders are unpleasant, but you can't deny that they naturally exist, don't mix normal with natural, one thing may not be normal in our society, but still exist naturally, and there's nothing "unnatural" about murders, people have emotions, and and people lost control, people are full filled with fear, hate jealousy, all of those have evolutionary explanations, what happens if all these emotions go wrong? you murder!

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I think National Geographic is a pretty reliable source. But it is wise to question things I supposed and they have been wrong on things before. Like when they said we would all be under water by the year 2005 because of global warming and life would be like water world.

And lately they have been annoying with all their alien conspirecy crap just like History Channel and Discovery Channel are doing. But still overall I think they are a good source, obviously not a perfect one (no one is). But their study seemed quite accurate.

worlock77

Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Hey I'm a pretty open minded person on here, don't bash me.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is not true though because in studies of animal packs that have gay pack members the survival of the offspring increases because there are additional caring males and females that protect the unit.

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

ShadowMoses900

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

That article just says that not all the wolves found mates so they took up to rasing cubs and taking care of the female ones when their male partners were gone or died. Some of them paired up with other male wolves, but at no point does it suggest they are gay nor does it mean they are gay.

We as humans may see a male dog mount another male dog as gay but in reality it's simply a male dog exterting dominance over the other. It doens't mean they are gay at all.

Homesexuality in animals is simply misunderstandings, people misinterpeting it. If they learn about animal behaviors they would know differently. And besides that's a terrible argument, just because animals do something doesn't make it ok. Animals also kill their young and eat the dead bodies of their pack, does that make it ok for us to do that too?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Terrible argument. That's like saying pedophiles and murders are 'natural' because they have occurred throughout the world and throughout history.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is not true though because in studies of animal packs that have gay pack members the survival of the offspring increases because there are additional caring males and females that protect the unit.

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

ShadowMoses900

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

That article just says that not all the wolves found mates so they took up to rasing cubs and taking care of the female ones when their male partners were gone or died. Some of them paired up with other male wolves, but at no point does it suggest they are gay nor does it mean they are gay.

We as humans may see a male dog mount another male dog as gay but in reality it's simply a male dog exterting dominance over the other. It doens't mean they are gay at all.

Homesexuality in animals is simply misunderstandings, people misinterpeting it. If they learn about animal behaviors they would know differently. And besides that's a terrible argument, just because animals do something doesn't make it ok. Animals also kill their young and eat the dead bodies of their pack, does that make it ok for us to do that too?

Yeah, I'll take the word of ShadowMoses, from the Gamespot forums, over the word of thousands of researchers actually working in the field.

I'll just leave this here...

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Terrible argument. That's like saying pedophiles and murders are 'natural' because they have occurred throughout the world and throughout history.Ncsoftlover

I won't bother quite that post

Pedophilia is natural because it's a sexual paraphilia, a sexual urge that naturally happens is perfectly natural, it may be condemned by the society, but that is a social construct, what's considered a crime now may be perfectly normal in some other cultural, or before civilization.

the reason pedophilia is natural is you're inclined to be attracted to youth for reproductive success right, not hard to figure out.

Murders are unpleasant, but you can't deny that they naturally exist, don't mix normal with natural, one thing may not be normal in our society, but still exist naturally, and there's nothing "unnatural" about murders, people have emotions, and and people lost control, people are full filled with fear, hate jealousy, all of those have evolutionary explanations, what happens if all these emotions go wrong? you murder!

Anyone against same-sex marriage is automatically a bigot. I don't care how you try to rationalize it, but that's all there is to it.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is not true though because in studies of animal packs that have gay pack members the survival of the offspring increases because there are additional caring males and females that protect the unit.

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

ShadowMoses900

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

That article just says that not all the wolves found mates so they took up to rasing cubs and taking care of the female ones when their male partners were gone or died. Some of them paired up with other male wolves, but at no point does it suggest they are gay nor does it mean they are gay.

We as humans may see a male dog mount another male dog as gay but in reality it's simply a male dog exterting dominance over the other. It doens't mean they are gay at all.

Homesexuality in animals is simply misunderstandings, people misinterpeting it. If they learn about animal behaviors they would know differently. And besides that's a terrible argument, just because animals do something doesn't make it ok. Animals also kill their young and eat the dead bodies of their pack, does that make it ok for us to do that too?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Maybe pedophilia is natural. Not relevant though because the problem with it is that it harms children, not that it's "unnatural".Nuck81

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Ignore him bro, he only believes in evidence that supports his own viewpoint..provide evidence otherwise, he'll disagree. ShadowMoses900

Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Hey I'm a pretty open minded person on here, don't bash me.

I wasn't bashing you. Follow the conversation.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out the fact that just because a perversion or deformity occurs (and always has) doesn't make it 'natural'. KC_Hokie

Then please explain what makes it unnatural.

So just because something happens and always has doesn't also automatically make it 'natural'.

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

FrostyPhantasm

Yeah i think having mixed gender parents is ideal because a child should have role models of both genders.Its not impossible for gays or even single parents to raise kids,but as you said it might have some nasty consequences.

Its not really a small chance that something can go wrong.And its not that i wouldnt allow them to adopt kids,its just that i prefer mixed gender parents and would rather give those kids to straight couples if available.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]that is not true though because in studies of animal packs that have gay pack members the survival of the offspring increases because there are additional caring males and females that protect the unit.

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

ShadowMoses900

what happened? you saw the word evolution in the link and decided it was not worth your time to look at?

That article just says that not all the wolves found mates so they took up to rasing cubs and taking care of the female ones when their male partners were gone or died. Some of them paired up with other male wolves, but at no point does it suggest they are gay nor does it mean they are gay.

We as humans may see a male dog mount another male dog as gay but in reality it's simply a male dog exterting dominance over the other. It doens't mean they are gay at all.

Homesexuality in animals is simply misunderstandings, people misinterpeting it. If they learn about animal behaviors they would know differently. And besides that's a terrible argument, just because animals do something doesn't make it ok. Animals also kill their young and eat the dead bodies of their pack, does that make it ok for us to do that too?

What's okay and what's not okay are social constructs, they're irrelevant. Because what's not okay, may very well be natural, killing you ex husband's new wife is not okay, but jealousy in a inborn emotion, and is an evolutionary advantage for survival. So killing others is natural, but not okay. just like how war is natural, but not praised. It's moral guildlines, doesn't define what's natural or not.

Having established that, a person lioving another, there's nothing morally wrong with it, it naturally happens, it doesn't hurt others, there's no reason to morally object to it, there's no reason these people do not deserve respect and equal rights, there.

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Maybe pedophilia is natural. Not relevant though because the problem with it is that it harms children, not that it's "unnatural".

KC_Hokie

I won't bother quite that post

Pedophilia is natural because it's a sexual paraphilia, a sexual urge that naturally happens is perfectly natural, it may be condemned by the society, but that is a social construct, what's considered a crime now may be perfectly normal in some other cultural, or before civilization.

the reason pedophilia is natural is you're inclined to be attracted to youth for reproductive success right, not hard to figure out.

Murders are unpleasant, but you can't deny that they naturally exist, don't mix normal with natural, one thing may not be normal in our society, but still exist naturally, and there's nothing "unnatural" about murders, people have emotions, and and people lost control, people are full filled with fear, hate jealousy, all of those have evolutionary explanations, what happens if all these emotions go wrong? you murder!

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]Maybe pedophilia is natural. Not relevant though because the problem with it is that it harms children, not that it's "unnatural".

KC_Hokie

I won't bother quite that post

Pedophilia is natural because it's a sexual paraphilia, a sexual urge that naturally happens is perfectly natural, it may be condemned by the society, but that is a social construct, what's considered a crime now may be perfectly normal in some other cultural, or before civilization.

the reason pedophilia is natural is you're inclined to be attracted to youth for reproductive success right, not hard to figure out.

Murders are unpleasant, but you can't deny that they naturally exist, don't mix normal with natural, one thing may not be normal in our society, but still exist naturally, and there's nothing "unnatural" about murders, people have emotions, and and people lost control, people are full filled with fear, hate jealousy, all of those have evolutionary explanations, what happens if all these emotions go wrong? you murder!

Yeah, it does. It might not make them normal to our fabricated society, but that doesn't mean they are unnatural.