Defending the Truth

tadpole256 · 06-29-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I disagree. There are many things that other cultures do that we don't have here. Socially viable is a fluid concept. Nature isn't quite so ambiguous in her intentions.

For example most plants are pretty much the same, chlorophyl, green, leaves...Then you have the unearthly venus fly trap...It's obviously intended for something other than just hanging around in the sun. My theory asserts that if homosexuals were supposed to be homosexuals nature would have done something evolutionary as it did for heterosexuality. A homosexual shows no physical difference from heterosexuals. Which goes on to further my theory that the sexual activity that homosexual animals practice would influence less intelligent hetersexual animals. Since gratification is a strong instinct. That's why some humans show a strong tendency to abuse drugs even to the point of suicide.

What's your point here?

fxashun · 06-29-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Not everything needs to be justified.

And no one ever said everyone has to accept it. But you can not discriminate against those who do. Nor should you try to change those who are homosexual just because you don't accept it...

And to that we agree. But I don't consider homosexual marriage discrimination since the homosexual couple has never been able to do what marriage implies. Since we all know that while marriage is based on the absolute of heterosexuality and all that that implies. Hense the man and woman part. We should not discriminate against homosexuals nor should they force heterosexuals to change a custom ingrained into our culture. Even if even some heterosexuals don't value it any more.

tadpole256 · 06-29-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

And to that we agree. But I don't consider homosexual marriage discrimination since the homosexual couple has never been able to do what marriage implies. Since we all know that while marriage is based on the absolute of heterosexuality and all that that implies. Hense the man and woman part. We should not discriminate against homosexuals nor should they force heterosexuals to change a custom ingrained into our culture. Even if even some heterosexuals don't value it any more.

What is marriage based on in your opinion? Having Children?

By that standard I should not be getting married because neither me nor my woman want to have kids... We'd rather have motorcycles and vacations... Does that mean it should be illegal for us to marry? What about people who CAN'T have kids? Surely they should not be allowed to marry...

I think it's clear to see the impotence (no pun intended) of your argument. There is no good reason to ban gay marriage... Not in our secular nation.

fxashun · 06-29-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

What's your point here?

I though I was quite obvious....My point is that is homosexuality, a orientation that is not new as many point out, was an orientation supported by nature/god/evolution there would be some change in the human intended to be a homosexual other than just his/her instinctual drive to partener with another one of the same gender.

If penguins can develope the ability to swim opposed to fly, ostriches developed strong legs and lost the ability also, and animals that evolve in caves develope the keen sense of hearing but lose the ability to see, some have even lost eyes such as the eyeless shrimp. No such luck for homosexual people.

hevusa · 06-29-2007, 11:25 AM

I really don't give a damn where homosexuals came from, what started it, if it is natural or not, etc.

The only thing that matters to me is that there are ADULTS who should have the FREEDOM to express their physical and emotional needs any way they see fit, so long as it is reciprocal.

Everything past that is just personal bias, ignorance and speculation.

tristanrobin · 06-29-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

What is marriage based on in your opinion? Having Children?

By that standard I should not be getting married because neither me nor my woman want to have kids... We'd rather have motorcycles and vacations... Does that mean it should be illegal for us to marry? What about people who CAN'T have kids? Surely they should not be allowed to marry...

I think it's clear to see the impotence (no pun intended) of your argument. There is no good reason to ban gay marriage... Not in our secular nation.

bravo

of course, to suggest otherwise is merely exercising a need to insult and offend others

tadpole256 · 06-29-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I though I was quite obvious....My point is that is homosexuality, a orientation that is not new as many point out, was an orientation supported by nature/god/evolution there would be some change in the human intended to be a homosexual other than just his/her instinctual drive to partener with another one of the same gender.

If penguins can develope the ability to swim opposed to fly, ostriches developed strong legs and lost the ability also, and animals that evolve in caves develope the keen sense of hearing but lose the ability to see, some have even lost eyes such as the eyeless shrimp. No such luck for homosexual people.

Your point is based on an ignorance of evolutionary science. Evolution happens over long periods of time... Humans simply have not existed long enough to have evolved into a species that can produce same-gender procreation. And I am not sure we ever will.

Furthermore, not everything need be about reproduction...

tadpole256 · 06-29-2007, 11:29 AM

So far all of FX's arguments are based off of very faulty conclusion haphazardly pieced together with a severe ignorance of scientific principles. I give him credit for trying to think it out, but the major fault he has is that he seems to have started with a conclusion, and is working his way backwards to prove it... That's not how the Scientific method works...