Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[Josh_LA]

ROFL. Its funny how in a post where I was saying its none of you damn business who marries who, I then go on to say that there is some valid argument to single sex parents raising kids BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT and the only thing you reply to is the parenting thing. Typical.

I never said there wasn't a valid argument to prefer some parents over others. Just admit some people are not equal, simple as that

First off since you want to focus on what is not the issue here Ill respond. I didnt say it was bad for single sex parents to raise kids. I said there is some valid argument. That means in my head I havent decided.


Second I dont want to hear any crap about how there are so many kids up for adoption its hard to find parents for them. There are several waiting lists for parents who want to adopt. The only kids who have problems fiding parents are the ones who are too old. Most people want babies. So thats bullshit.

If that were true, we shouldn't worry about gay people waiting in line if the line is so long, and certainly it isn't long enough to make gays irrelevant, and who's fault is that?

Im offended compleatly by your ignorance. Who do we owe something to if not our children?

I don't care if you're offended, go F yourself. And yes, I am saying we owe NOBODY ANYTHING.

Finally I never said anything about fags and dykes. Those are your words and you use them because you dont have the intellect to find better words. In my opinion these words are just as bad as nigger and only serve to opress people esspecially when they are used BY gay people. Get your head out of your ass.

I used those words to make sure I'm not accused of defending gays and not afraid to offend gays. And yes, that's just as bad as nigger and kike, which I say too.

As far as shutting up. Good luck with that... I say what I think and ANY man who wants to take that RIGHT from me had better pack a damn lunch.

My point was, unless you're doing something better than adopting children by gays, your opinion is meaningless.

This is pretty much all I have to say about this. I came to this forum looking to see if there is anyone willing to stand up for thier country yet. I chose this post as the one to respond to because I had just had this discussion with friends and I figured I would start here. But you sir are obviously a simple creature driven by your emotions and not your intellect as is obvious by most of your replies in this thread. Arguing with you is just about equal to cow tipping on my waste of time-o-meter. Thank you for the debate.

not a debate if you walk away.

If you have intellect and something to say, be my guest and show yourself, like Mr. BeFranklin did.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I've said the whole thread I think that homosexuality is a perversion, and the sodomy laws should be put back in place at least to include things such as shutting down gay bars and glory holes, etc. Also, its a problem that ought to be treated.

Can you "cure" nature?
Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation

 

[Feenix566]

Jefferson is not my God, I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.

You can say you have rights all you want, see if you say the same thing when I have a gun to your head (not a threat, just telling you rights mean nothing unless exercised and recognized).

If you violate my rights, I still have them. They've just been violated. Just because you chose to ignore them, that doesn't mean they're not there. Rights exist in an objective sense. They are the basis of objective moral truth. If you use your gun to violate my rights, what you have done is wrong, whether anyone recognizes it as such or not.

 

[dannno]

Can you "cure" nature?
Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation

Damn you! I was about to post that..


Lemme post it up here..

Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation
Sunday Feb 25, 2007
Roger Dobson


Female koalas indulge in lesbian "sex sessions", rejecting male suitors and attempting to mate with each other, sometimes up to five at a time, according to researchers.

The furry, eucalyptus-eating creatures appear to develop this tendency for same-sex liaisons when they are in captivity. In the wild, they remain heterosexual.

Scientists monitoring the marsupials with digital cameras counted three homosexual interactions for every heterosexual one.

"Some females rejected the advances of males that were in their enclosures, only to become willing participants in homosexual encounters immediately after," say the researchers.

"On several occasions more than one pair of females shared the same pole, and multiple females mounted each other simultaneously. At least one multiple encounter involved five female koalas.

"One theory put forward by the researchers is that the females do it to attract males; another is that it is simply hormonal, or that it is a stress reliever.

Scientists from the University of Queensland studied 130 koalas in captivity and will publish their results in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
"Our aim was to determine the extent of differences in the homosexual and heterosexual behaviour of female koalas and thereby to determine the purpose of female homosexual behaviour in the koala," say the researchers.

"Wild koalas brought into captivity clearly display homosexual behaviour on a regular basis. A total of 15 heterosexual and 43 homosexual interactions were recorded in separate animals. Homosexual behaviour was restricted to females only. Heterosexual encounters were typically twice as long as homosexual encounters," they add.

So does that mean humans are in "captivity" ??

 

[Josh_LA]

If you violate my rights, I still have them. They've just been violated. Just because you chose to ignore them, that doesn't mean they're not there. Rights exist in an objective sense. They are the basis of objective moral truth. If you use your gun to violate my rights, what you have done is wrong, whether anyone recognizes it as such or not.

if all you can do is speak out about it, have fun. I'm sure people who died under communist regimes loved saying their life was being violated, that helped them big time.

 

[Josh_LA]

Damn you! I was about to post that..


Lemme post it up here..





So does that mean humans are in "captivity" ??

Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.

 

[dannno]

Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.

But they said that the homosexuality didn't exist in nature.

Does that mean there might also be less pedophiles, rapists and murderers in 'nature'? Maybe 'captivity' is the major cause of some or all of these things?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, any human being who is not acting within his own "nature", is in captivity. Some are born and uncureably pedophiles, rapists and murderers, anybody who stands in their way is violating nature.

The conditions you mentioned involve a psychology that motivates people to harm others. Homosexuals are not inherently inclined to harm others. I think you're trying to infer from the article that homosexuality, as a genetic trait, is harmful somehow. This is clearly not true from the evidence put forth in the koala study or any other study on this subject (to my knowledge).

 

[Josh_LA]

But they said that the homosexuality didn't exist in nature.

Does that mean there might also be less pedophiles, rapists and murderers in 'nature'? Maybe 'captivity' is the major cause of some or all of these things?

"They" are retarded, probably say that evolution isn't true, or if it's true we should kill each other like animals do.

I don't blame captivity for much, I believe in responsibility.

What IS true, is that homosexuality is not nature's common and preferred method of reproduction and survival. Which means, homosexuals are not normal people, sure, so what?

 

[Josh_LA]

The conditions you mentioned involve a psychology that motivates people to harm others. Homosexuals are not inherently inclined to harm others. I think you're trying to infer from the article that homosexuality, as a genetic trait, is harmful somehow. This is clearly not true from the evidence put forth in the koala study or any other study on this subject (to my knowledge).

No, it doesn't matter whether somebody has the inherent motivation to harm another, if it's his nature, we should let it happen. Captivating anybody is harmful as well. (but we as societies decide that captivating pedophiles is OK because hurting children is wrong).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"They" are retarded, probably say that evolution isn't true, or if it's true we should kill each other like animals do.

I don't blame captivity for much, I believe in responsibility.

What IS true, is that homosexuality is not nature's common and preferred method of reproduction and survival. Which means, homosexuals are not normal people, sure, so what?

Exactly. Neither are diabetics, the deaf, or the blind. The point is that all these individual people are born with natural rights, and statist incursion on them is inherently wrong.

 

[Josh_LA]

Exactly. Neither are diabetics, the deaf, or the blind. The point is that all these individual people are born with natural rights, and statist incursion on them is inherently wrong.

well, this is where I'd disagree. I don't believe people are born with rights, especially positive rights, which would fuel leftist socialist arguments. I believe people are born with the ability to demand and fight for their rights (and those who don't don't).

 

[SeanEdwards]

There is every reason to forbid having children from a couple that is closely related who may cause birth defects in their children. And religious institutes have traditionally forbidden this type of marriage.

This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.


edit:

Polygamist families are more justifiable than homosexual families. At least the polygamist structure reflects a family organization that can be reproductively successful. The children of polygamist families are at least being exposed to a lifestyle that may facilitiate their own future efforts at forming a reproductive relationship. What are the children of gay family's learning about viable social contracts that facilitate reproduction?

 

[Josh_LA]

This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.


edit:

Polygamist families are more justifiable than homosexual families. At least the polygamist structure reflects a family organization that can be reproductively successful. The children of polygamist families are at least being exposed to a lifestyle that may facilitiate their own future efforts at forming a reproductive relationship. What are the children of gay family's learning about viable social contracts that facilitate reproduction?

I agree polygamist families are more natural, unmarried families are even more natural. By this logic, we should have no problem legally recognizing any polygamous union as "marriage", or any two people as "married" regardless of what they do. Trailer trash & promiscuity is the best reflection of being reproductively successful, have babies and don't take care of them.

Is it a bit hypocritical that you're willing to talk about adopting children, yet worry about whether couples have children? If having children biologically were moral, wouldn't it be immoral to adopt children?

Children of gay families learn what everybody learns, that gays are people, and straight people are normal. Having sex gives you babies and babies cost money. Is any gay person denying these facts or intending to teach children otherwise?

 

[chwisch87]

Listen, studies show that children raised in gay families turn out just fine with no side effects as compared to heterosexual ones.

If you are going to make wild claims at least have tangible research to back it up.

 

[Conservative Christian]

This social taboo against incestuous families does not rest upon any kind of holy scripture, it is a societal reaction to natural law. You don't need religion to recognize that these families structures that are incompatible with our biology are messed up. This is why an atheist like myself does not need relgious teaching to recognize that families should reflect the natural order defined by our biology. You don't need to look to "god" for answers, when the answer is right there between your legs.

BINGO! I'm completely fed up with homosexual sheeple blaming societal attitudes on homosexuality on "big, bad Christians". They ignorantly ASSume that anybody opposed to homosexuality and the gay power movement, is a drooling religious fanatic with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson posters plastered all over the walls of their home.

The militant atheist and communist dictator, Leonid Brezhnev, who resided over the officially atheist Soviet state for many years---once stated in an official speech to his fellow atheist and communist party cohorts---that homosexuality would NOT be tolerated in the Soviet Union.

In fact, for many decades, a substantial number of homosexuals were sent to Soviet forced labor camps, simply because they were homosexuals.

In many PAGAN parts of the world, where Christianity has never even seen the light of day, homosexuals have been frequently imprisoned, killed etc. over the centuries.

 

[ItsTime]

In many PAGAN parts of the world, where Christianity has never even seen the light of day, homosexuals have been frequently imprisoned, killed etc. over the centuries.

Can you name a few?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

well, this is where I'd disagree. I don't believe people are born with rights, especially positive rights, which would fuel leftist socialist arguments. I believe people are born with the ability to demand and fight for their rights (and those who don't don't).

If one isn't born with natural rights, why would one fight for them? If rights were bestowed by "society" or some other abstraction, then said abstraction would naturally keep them hidden from individuals. Thus, the Enlightenment would never have occurred, and the dark ages would never have ended. I agree with your point about positive rights.

You also assume that man is irrational. When the prevailing attitude of a group of people is rational and sane, and natural order spontaneously occurs. Behold, the playground. When children get together to play games, they don't do so at random. They understand that they must respect the rights and privileges of one another in order to function properly and effectively.

Since man is innately capable of understanding personal and interpersonal relationships, it follows that a system of rights would develop.

So you see, proper functionality of individuals in a larger group requires that everyone owns themselves and their legitimate property. Everything else spring from that.

If I'm being too vague, let me know.

~heavenlyboy~

 

[lucius]

^^

 

[lucius]

``