It was the end of a weekend that I had worked and I am so sick of this subject anyway. It is not that bad anyway. You seem to think you can counter my argument that homosexuality has no gain that makes up for it's cost by suggesting that homosexuality gets any credits that heterosexuality which is just annoying.
Can you explain what that sentence means? I don’t understand.
I can get two adults or actually two life forms and assign a child to them and call that a family and insist all family units are equal and that whatever goes for one must go for the other which is juts plain wrong.
How about we just stick with humans? There are many combinations of family members that can collectively be called a “family unit.” How is a family with two gay parents and a child any different from a family with two straight parents and a child? Or a single mother and a child? Or two sisters and a child? How are they
not to be considered “family units?” I’m not getting what your big problem is here.
Homosexual sex is not the same as heterosexual sex,
For the most part it is. Even heterosexuals engage in some of the actions you would probably consider homosexual in nature.
not the same as heterosexual relationships,
Why not? What’s the big difference?
not the same as heterosexual family units,
Why not? What’s the big difference?
not the same as heterosexual marriage.
Why not? What’s the big difference?
I am trying to show the absurdity of claiming it is by showing that the same reasoning would also validate things no one is trying to defend.
I think you’ve demonstrated the absurdity in your way of thinking about homosexuals.
Ok but first explain how two psychopaths and a child is not a family.
I would consider it a family. Two parents and a child are a family, whether they’re narcissists, psychopaths, heterosexuals, homosexuals, or suffer from OCD. If my sister and I have to raise my niece together, I’d consider us a family unit. I consider a single father with a child a family unit. And on and on and on. Don’t you remember the kindergarten lesson that talks about families coming in all shapes and sizes?
If your going to equate two inequalities then you must adopt all inequalities. IOW if your going to falsely claim a duck and an flamingo are the same then you must grant an flamingo and a elephant are the same.
Huh? How am I doing that?
Lets say the standard is heterosexual family units then homosexuality may have a difference factor of 3 but if your going to claim the differences don't matter then at least be consistent and say no differences matter and suggest two trees and a child are the same as heterosexual family units. There is no possible to say two parents who can mate is wrong. What your trying to do is glam on to that legitimacy by setting something different is also ok by the virtue of some similarities by that is arbitrary and contrived but if your going to do it anyway then why stop there? Why are horses and humans not family units, or get out of the confines of organics and state two rocks and a pebble are a family unit. You have no justification for accepting some deviance and excluding all deviance.
This paragraph is utterly absurd. You’re talking about trees raising kids? Seriously? Horses and humans?
I can't recall what every person who buys into a deviance has used to defend it. The tiny handful of species that show homosexual tendencies (but no strict homosexual examples) are constantly used for justification. Homosexual threads are chocked with a lot of prolific posts so everything gets intertwined. Are you saying that nature is not a justification for the behavior then?
The large handful of species that are known to display varying levels of homosexuality are used as evidence to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural. It’s not even close to being the only justification for homosexual behavior in humans.
Yes they are and in fact your side constantly claims homosexuality is not a choice and they live their entire lives strictly homosexual.
Ah, I think I misunderstood what you said somehow. I still don’t see what point you’re trying to make in repeating this though.
So that part about it being a issue so complex that it is not practical as a primary topic much less as one of many sidebars just didn't find purchase did it? It was not even my primary point in the sidebar. I said immorality destroys empires and homosexuality is among them.
I heard all that. I’m asking what part you think homosexuality has to play in that. So your assertion is that homosexuality leads to moral decline, which then contributes to the downfall of empires? If so, how does homosexuality lead to moral decline strong enough to take down an empire?
The other part I'm not getting here has to do with the fact that gay people have always been around and will always be around so it's not like you can flip a switch or something and gay goes away. Homosexuality has existed probably in every culture and in every time on earth. So this big part it supposedly plays in moral declines and downfalls of empires is kinda fuzzy to me given that gay people don't just disappear if you fail to acknowledge their existence and/or demonize and illegitimatize them as a group. They're always going to be there. The "moral insanity" (as you see it) is always there regardless of what you want to do about it. I guess I'm wondering what your suggestion is here. Do we go back to demonizing gay people? Putting them in jail? Pretending they don't exist? What, exactly?
The 20th century had more bloodshed than the other 19 combined. That is not run of the mill. Abortion for the first time in history is on an industrial scale. We have invented the means to wipe out every life form known and the moral insanity to have almost done so at least twice. I am certain that you do not know that the only reason me and you are alive to discuss how horrific the 20th has been is because some technician asked by Gorbechev whether the early launch warning was a launch or a solar event and the technician having more guts than many took his life in his hands and said solar event despite his not knowing for sure. We were minutes from Armageddon, exactly how many times prior to the 20th century did that occur. Now since you want to win a word fight instead of learn from history in all probability you can come back with technology causing this but even if I grant that that is at least a partial cause then that would have made doing it even that much more immoral yet we did it anyway. We can kill more people and we do so in spite of that. Even Caser and Alexander balked at times at the death tolls.
To think about the hardships, war, death, famine, disease, cold-blooded murder, etc. that humanity has faced during its entire history long before the 20th century was even a thought in anyone’s head is mind boggling.
Nope, it has been ended by the invading nation and it has become unsustainable, it became impossible, etc....... I have read there are no other nations that did this but I can think of another possible one. I think Babylon voluntarily let at least it's Hebrew slaves free but no parallel to what we did exists. We not only did it but shed a river of blood to suppress those that refused. We then went on to end in in nation after nation around the world.
Great Britain and Canada ended the slave trade on their own without being invaded by anyone. That’s just two off the top of my head.
We won it and others helped (using our equipment). In fact without the US arsenal of democracy Russia nor England would have been around to help at all. What won that war was industry and we produced more war goods than every other nation on either side combined. What our industry did in that war is simply unbelievable. In one year we produced more capitol aircraft carriers that all other nations combined for all four years. Russia couldn't move until we gave them tens of thousands of vehicles and England fought across Africa in our tanks. No US and everyone would be eating sauerkraut and rice. It was never a point I made than no one else was shooting in the same direction and it is irrelevant.
The subject was not what nation you like the most but what nation has a record of excellence and benevolence that exceeds any other. First admit that you have no contention to my claims then you can move to Alberta (hey they do have Rush at least).
That’s a good lot of egocentric history there. I’m happy for you that you love your country so much. I’m not sure anymore what this has to do with homosexuality.
