[QUOTE="peter1191"]

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]

If they wanna get married, live happily for a few years, divorce and lose half there worldly pocession.. I say let them.

And lol to the guy in the first page (30 posts a page0 who compared it to the likes of Pedophillia, incest and human-animal relations. Stupidity is a funny thing. :lol

RiseAgainst12

Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.

What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.

Teenaged

We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.

We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

There never would be a voting about taxes. Simply because a government cannot allow the citizens to get the chance to vote on something that might put the whole economy in danger. As you see democracy does have boundaries.

I think you are using a very ideal definition of democracy that is not applied in any democratic country.

What non-constitutional ideologies are these?

Teenaged

They are right actually. Any right not specified to the federal government belongs to the states and the people. Simple as that. I don't think you can argue that marriage is not a right.

If they wanna get married, live happily for a few years, divorce and lose half there worldly pocession.. I say let them.

And lol to the guy in the first page (30 posts a page0 who compared it to the likes of Pedophillia, incest and human-animal relations. Stupidity is a funny thing. :lol

RiseAgainst12

Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.

[QUOTE="ZenesisX"]

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

lostrib

Agreed...it's only when a bunch of fearmongering nuts got a bunch of people to believe that homosexuals would destroy them did it matter. And to be honest i cant understand the logic it just makes me angry.

Just one last post before I'm off to sleep. I want to see what you guys have to say. Here is my question: where does it end? First homosexuals today, then polygamists tommore (look at canadian politics for an example). Then father-daughter or mother-son relations (when they are old enough to consent). THen the age for said consent will be dropped. Then bestiality. Where does it end? Where do you draw the line on proper human interactions? I say at a man and woman. You say that man-man and woman-woman are "equal." Thats a very flimsy word. "equal" It can be used over and over again, and it will mean something new each and every time. I do not fearmongol, I try to see why such an idea as homosexuality has become accepted in our culture. I will probably be a minority oppositing this trend soon. But you know what, integrity. Thats what I aim for. As everyone else goes with the flow, and accepts things in society as they come, I step outside of it and see the trends. When African-Americans gained their equality back in the 1960s, or Women in the 1920s then 1970s, it was not based of "love" or emotion. It was based of REAL EQUALITY. There is no reason a black man should be inferior to a white one, intellectually or not. Likewise a woman maybe weaker than a man, but in a society where intellect is the new ammunition, she is an equal. Homosexuals are humans too. THey have all the rights we do. They just ask for more. They ask us to change our definition of marrige for them. And who knows? Once a ingrained tradition of the human race is altered, where does it end? There is no "REAL EQUALITY" in the union of homosexuals, only there is equality in the homosexuals themselves. Consider this arguement. It will not convince you, but at least I made my point.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

lostrib

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

The problem is that you've pidgeonholed the role men and women; it is possible that a person of the opposite gender can take on the role of a man/woman. So it is not necesarily true that with out a man, a boy can't learn to be a man. In addition, it's not like homosexual couples only hang out with people of the same sex they do have friends and relatives of the opposite sex who could fulfill these roles

In addition, I have a feeling if we looked at the statistics we would see that it is not homosexual couples that are screwing up children and having them taken away by social services or giving them away to orphanages or leaving them in dumpsters. Just because people can make children doesnt mean they make good parents. Anyone can donate their genetic material to make a child but it takes a lot more to be a parent.

Your completely correct, and I did not deny one word that you said in my original post. Look closely, I said that the parent would be the "most effective" at full filling such a role. Is that wrong or right to assert? Because men and women generally have pretty similar roles when it comes to children, despite variation. Now your free to disagree with me, but two parents of two different genders would naturally be able to full fill their roles more effectively than not. Come on now, there is always talk about how a "real man" takes responsiblity, stands up for what he believes, protects his family. Homosexuals? A few can claim this as well. THe majority I've met in my life, however, are high-pitched fools who don't know left from right. Have there been intelligent ones? Of course, undoubtablly (it would be foolish to deny). But since we're talking about "love" and marriage being the equivalent of love (though in no time in history has this been true), well, I might as well stand up and say that all homosexuals are dumb and this is a foolish conversation. The concrete is preferable to the intangible, but I have seen mostly fools around me that have been homosexuals. I may be "narrow minded," but I still have yet to see one reason why homosexuality is natural, accepted, and not some mental disease or unnatural development.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

Dark_Knight6

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

metroidfood

Dimples are still around, yet they don't do ****.

And you have yet to explain why homosexuality is unnatural, despite the fact that it is found in nature, and explain why being unnatural is cause for not allowing it, seeing as how driving cars is unnatural.

Again, no one answers the question. THey just use some crappy ancedotal evidence. What does dimples have to do with anything?! Homosexuality does not allow for reproduction. Simple. Unnatural. Just because other animals experience it does not make it natural. Some people are born with 4 arms and two heads. Some animals suffer the same fate. Is it natural? NO! Because it does not aid the person (or animal) in any meaningful way! When something is against your very nature, that something is destructive to that nature. Homosexuality is that. Answer the question. How could homosexuality aid in our survival? Video games are entertainment. Fast food is the same, but for the stomach. Is homosexuality entertainment? Can we afford to entertain a notion contrary to society's structure, and to the raising of children in a proper household? Because as far as I know, many communities in the US today complain of a fatherless household, for example. Now why would that be a problem if only a woman or a man was needed in the house?

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Good your smart. I expected some sorry reply like: "we're all equal anyway, forget the logic, its love!" Heterosexual couples who can't give birth are nonetheless "natural" if we want to go down this Darwinistic route (which by the way I don't like to use, but I was just putting it out there for thought) because it is not that they lack the "tools" to create children, it is merely the fact their "tools" are unable to function. THey can still provide a natural home for the development of youth, who can grow up and be able to reproduce themselves. Homosexuals are not "impared," they are incompatible by nature (for making children). They do not provide the optimum enviornment for raising future generations (lack of male or female figure, depending on the case) if adoption was a sought after course. Biologically there is a great difference between imparity and incompatability. Now, I ask you: can we make such an arguement for father-daughters or mother-sons? No. THink about it. As our society accepts innuendos as "equal" these arguements will lose clout as the one I have posted above. DONT LET YOUR COMPLACENCY BE THE REASON FOR CASUAL INSANITY

Dark_Knight6

If they're "tools" don't work, something has gone awry, has it not? So how exactly are they any more natural than homosexuals when something has gone wrong with their body. So much so, that they cannot reproduce. As far as a male and female figure being required for a stable household, I'd like some proof. And as far as the youth being able to reproduce, homosexuals do not always raise homosexuals. I'm not going to bother addressing your slippery slope argument at the end because frankly, it's terrible.

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?