Why is this relevant? Why does this give you permission to be outrageously mean-spirited?
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
Why is this relevant? Why does this give you permission to be outrageously mean-spirited?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Nothing. I don't recall saying otherwise. I don't think I'm being dogmatic, just asking for the reasons why homosexual behavior is so detrimental to his country, society, families and individuals. If someone asks me for proof to some assertion I've made, I'm more than willing to back down if I have none.
"Don't be mean to people (unless it's in defense of yourself or others)" is hardly dogma.
I get what you're saying, but rational is a pretty subjective term. The issue I have with this reasoning is it suggests humans can "figure it out", which has caused plenty of hatred and pain in the past. I for one am not smart enough to figure anything out, and the bright ones come to different conclusions anyway. What about spiritual confirmation, real or perceived? Is there any standard other than self-righteousness?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Sure, ultimately we all decide what reasons are good reasons. At some level, it's subjective. With that said, if I assert something, I try to have some reason/argument for that assertion, understanding that some people may disagree and/or offer some insight on why I may be wrong by providing some counter arguments. "It's bad because it's bad" doesn't qualify as an argument worth considering IMO.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
DutchJazzer
Banned
i want to make it clear i am not a homophoob.
hope this removes all misconceptions about me
hope this removes all misconceptions about me
What I'm getting at is one man's reasoning is rationalization to another. I agree "It's bad because it's bad" isn't much of an argument. But "It's bad because it's against God's creation" is a much finer tuned argument with many underlying tenets. Once a religious person finds God after subjectively seeking out "what reasons are good reasons", it's harder to accept something deemed "unnatural". It's hardly biased if a religious person comes to support an anti-gay this or that law, but it's easy to see that it is biased from another subjectively reached POV.
Sure a lot of religious people are indoctrinated bigots who take the Bible thumping word without question. I think the truly religious are a little more sincere and would not base a decision on bigotry.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Capable sure....willing?
And if they chose to procreate would their children all be gay and be forced to procreate against their nature for suvival of the species as well?
Wow, now THAT would be the ultimate study in genetics and homosexuality. If it were purely genetic and a society consisting of only homosexual individuals of mixed gender chose to procreate to propogate the species, and the children turned out not to be gay, would that prove that it is not genetic? It might even prove it isn't environtmental as you can't get a much more pro-gay environment than that. If they all did turn out to be gay, then had to reproduce against their nature, and, presumably against their will, would they eventually become straight? If so that would seem to imply environmental factors (the need to reproduce for survival of the species), or would it be evolution at that point. Would evolution among that society tend toward heterosexuality as as a means of propogating the species?
No matter the outcome the results would be hugely interesting to see.
I dont think anyone is accusing you of being a homophoob.
DutchJazzer
Banned
the neg rep im receiving from this thread alone suggest otherwise
but from this thread it looks like they are just blaming me for being an idiot or troll.
Woooooooosssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Suppose I said that whoever lives in Holland is weak-minded. Let's also say I didn't back up that assertion with any fact whatsoever, yet insisted on its truth. Finally - and most importantly - when I was confronted with fairly valid evidence that this is not the case, I still held my nose high in the air and refused to acknowledge that what I said was insipid. Wouldn't you get upset with me after a while?
And no, I didn't give you any negative rep. Actually, at one point early in this thread, I gave you positive rep for at least keeping your opinions civil (unlike our other famous homosexuality-themed thread, where the main antagonist was insistent on enraging people).
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Um...Dutch people ARE weak minded, like the rest of Europe. So I'm not seeing your point chem.
My declaration of faith was stated in the first post clearly, and if it took you reading the portion about body parts it took you too long.
I am talking life, and science here. How many Mammals separate the transfer of genetic material from reproduction as a same act occurrence?
How does Darwin's idea of Natural Selection fit in here? How are the most favorable genes going to be passed on, if not by copulation? How are Mammals, or Humans to copulate if their "reproductive organs" are not really for reproduction? Why would you have a problem with me saying the main purpose of reproduction organs is for reproduction, or the main purpose of a heart is to move blood, or the main purpose of a colon is to help, or allow, waste to be out of the body? Is that not science? Where did you learn your science if you think that is religion? It's like basic math. One plus one is two.
Even Darwin would laugh at someone who stated the main purpose of sex in humans is not reproduction. If humans stopped reproducing, there would be no humans, no matter what they did in their spare time. By the way, if you want to wait a generation to see who is right on their interpretation of the purpose of reproductive organs or the proper usage of them you can find out. The only way to get a little One Brow is to combine a female egg with a One Brow sperm, and hope things work out (assuming One Brow is male). All other activities will not result in mini-One Brow.
This is called conversation. It is usually what people do when they at least want to understand the other person's point of view. It does not work well when one, or both of those people are angry. Why are you so angry and hung up on this thread when it does not affect you? And another thing... how do you know it does not affect me? You don't even know me and you are assuming this in regards to me and others.
This is a two way street here. I don't assume that all people who don't support my faith or religion are hating on me. Try it, it helps take the edge off the nerves.
By the way, Katie would not bring it up, if Katie did not want a conversation on the topic. Katie really has not been too riled up from this thread, so others might want to follow her show of calm here.
DutchJazzer
Banned
THIS is the mother of all post
/thread
gayness sucks
okay on to some serious business f it's genetics. means a homosexual is defect. something that is defect is WEAK. if it is choice that said person is also weak going against nature, when something isn't doing what its supposed to do it is weak.
dont know how to restate this in other words. homosexuals, transgenders bisexuals, lesbians, asexuals, omnisexuals or whatever they wanna be called these days are weak(or defective or whatever you wanna call it).
to restate it incase you dont understand. a gun that does what it's supposed to do. now thats a gun i'm willing to risk my life with go to war with. would you go to war with a deffective gun?
on a side note hot lesbians rule
.
Last edited: