Doritos to launch Gay Pride flag chips

[Robert.Evans]

"The human family would be better off if we shrank a bit, rather than continuing to grow. People having gay sex leads to that outcome.

Unlike war, abortion, or starvation/ disease, homosex reduces population in a way that is voluntary and doesn't cause the suffering that normal population control does. It fulfills some basic human needs, like intimacy and orgasm and family. It doesn't cause people to pop out babies that they can't really care for.
So homosex, overall, is more moral than heterosex. That wasn't true a thousand years ago, but it is now."

That is the rest of my post.

A thousand years ago the human race was a small fraction of the current numbers.
If you still have questions, let me know.
Tom

Haha.... have you never heard of contraception? I can't believe you are promoting immorality off that...oh. I forget, you don't think its wrong do you. lol

 

[Robert.Evans]

You remind me of the racists who just couldn't understand that most of the world had moved beyond their bigotry.
Tom

Becoming, presumably, its own form of bigotry

 

[Sees]

Haha.... have you never heard of contraception? I can't believe you are promoting immorality off that...oh. I forget, you don't think its wrong do you. lol

If we accept homosexuality is more abnormal than heterosexuality, and even accept that it is more prone to health risks...is it anymore immoral than being left-handed or eating lots of fried food?

 

[Robert.Evans]

If we accept homosexuality is more abnormal than heterosexuality, and even accept that it is more prone to health risks...is it anymore immoral than being left-handed or eating lots of fried food?

yes.

 

[Sees]

yes.

How so?

Also in regards to the health risks argument - could you say with a straight face that if homosexuality was found in multiple studies to be healthier than heterosexuality, you would reverse your position? If not then including the argument is a bit disingenuous.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How so?

Also in regards to the health risks argument - could you say with a straight face that if homosexuality was found in multiple studies to be healthier than heterosexuality, you would reverse your position? If not then including the argument is a bit disingenuous.

I am not sure what the point of this question is. I just can't fathom if you are posting it just to wind me up perhaps? You are comparing gays with left handed people???

 

[Sees]

I am not sure what the point of this question is. I just can't fathom if you are posting it just to wind me up perhaps? You are comparing gays with left handed people???

The point is whether there is any sound foundation to claim homosexuality is immoral outside of religious doctrine. Differing from the norm isn't inherently immoral, activities/lifestyles with greater health risks aren't inherently immoral...so what is it outside of religious doctrine?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The point is whether there is any sound foundation to claim homosexuality is immoral outside of religious doctrine. Differing from the norm isn't inherently immoral, activities/lifestyles with greater health risks aren't inherently immoral...so what is it outside of religious doctrine?

If we are saying that morality is about right and wrong, it would seem obvious that it is wrong biologically. Need I say more? I don't even know why you ask this. Sometimes I feel that some people argue things that are accepted just to continually question things. Now i am all for open inquiry, but not to the point that we can't see what is obvious and therefore promote something that is inherently dangerous. . . and there has been plenty cited on this thread to show that

 

[Demonslayer]

If we are saying that morality is about right and wrong, it would seem obvious that it is wrong biologically.

How so? "Wrong" biologically? Because it doesn't produce a child? What about hetero oral sex or masturbation or sex with a woman past menopause.

Need I say more?

Yes, you're going to have to say a LOT more than "it' ain't normal!" if you plan on making any serious point about homosexuality and why it's "wrong."

 

[McBell]

Norman: Except you have not proved that same sex attraction is natural? I have yet to see any conversation from you of research or mentioning both sides of an argument. You just piggy back on other peoples comments so you can stay in your safe zone of which I have seen this pattern of yours many times.

Nice try.
Fact is he made the claim.
It is on him to support said claim.
He has only offered up choir sermons in support of his claim.

The only claim I have made is that he has not shown homosexuality to be not natural outside his choir.
Now being a choir member, I understand how you cannot see he has not supported his claim, but has merely ratified his, and your, beliefs.

So if you are willing to stop the sad attempt at diversion by attacking me....

 

[McBell]

Norman: Your minuscule and apophasis comment is nothing but puffery.

*yawn*
fact is you have not supported your claims of homosexuality being not natural.

Perhaps you will try without all the choir noise?

 

[McBell]

haha.... he doesn't want answers. When you give them, which I have, he finds some other excuse. From him, and others, I have had the excuse that the dictionary I used was out of date, the link was to a blog (even though it wasn't, it was to a book with cited works) So what is the point? If he is interested he would find it. I answered it at the beginning and many times thus

You offer up an opinion piece as support and then whine when it is pointed out it is nothing but an opinion piece.
Do you have something that is not a ratifying choir sermon to support your claim that homosexuality is not natural?
I suspect you do not.
Otherwise you would have presented it by now.

So now that we have established you have nothing but opinion to support your claim that homosexuality is not natural, we just dismiss your empty claim for the empty claim it is.

 

[McBell]

Now you have put that far better than I !

Sad really.
that he best you have is to try and shift the burden of proof.
Reveals you do not have anything other than opinion to support your empty claim.

 

[McBell]

How so?

Also in regards to the health risks argument - could you say with a straight face that if homosexuality was found in multiple studies to be healthier than heterosexuality, you would reverse your position? If not then including the argument is a bit disingenuous.

Thus the whole count the hits and ignore the misses tactic they are employing.

 

[McBell]

If we are saying that morality is about right and wrong, it would seem obvious that it is wrong biologically. Need I say more? I don't even know why you ask this. Sometimes I feel that some people argue things that are accepted just to continually question things. Now i am all for open inquiry, but not to the point that we can't see what is obvious and therefore promote something that is inherently dangerous. . . and there has been plenty cited on this thread to show that

Seeing as all you have done is count the hits and ignored the misses, this reply is nothing more than dishonest rhetoric.
You have not shown homosexuality to be not natural.
You have merely claimed it is.
You have not shown homosexuality to be more dangerous that heterosexuality.
you merely claim it is.
If it was as obvious as you claim, why have you not even been able to show it is true, let alone obvious?
All you have cited is an opinion piece and some stats on AIDS.

So what we see is that you are most excellent at ratifying your beliefs, but royally suck at convincing non-choir members.

 

[Norman]

Nice try.
Fact is he made the claim.
It is on him to support said claim.
He has only offered up choir sermons in support of his claim.

The only claim I have made is that he has not shown homosexuality to be not natural outside his choir.
Now being a choir member, I understand how you cannot see he has not supported his claim, but has merely ratified his, and your, beliefs.

So if you are willing to stop the sad attempt at diversion by attacking me....

Norman: Here are some facts for you in the country that you live in, read and digest.
HIV severely affects gay and bisexual men—more than any other group in the United States. Gay and bisexual men make up about 2% of the overall population, but account for approximately two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Data included in CDC’s 2013 National HIV Prevention Progress Report show that there was a 12% increase in new infections among gay and bisexual men overall between 2008 and 2010, and a 22% increase among young gay and bisexual men aged 13-24. Gay and bisexual men also account for over half of the 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States. A 2011 study in 20 U.S. cities found that 18% of gay or bisexual men had HIV. That’s about 1 in 6 men. Of these men, 33% did not know they had HIV. Those who are unaware that they have HIV may infect others without knowing it. Also, those who do not know they are HIV-positive are not able to get HIV treatment that can protect their health and reduce the chance of transmitting HIV to their partners.

why do you think this is so Mestemia?

Reference:

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm

 

[Norman]

You remind me of the racists who just couldn't understand that most of the world had moved beyond their bigotry.
Tom

Norman: Why don't you just answer my responses to you? Norman: What result? How is this result helping the world to improve? What am I trying to stop?

 

[Norman]

Seeing as all you have done is count the hits and ignored the misses, this reply is nothing more than dishonest rhetoric.
You have not shown homosexuality to be not natural.

Norman: How is same sex attraction natural? Dishonest rhetoric?

You have merely claimed it is.

Norman: You have merely claimed that it is natural

You have not shown homosexuality to be more dangerous that heterosexuality.
you merely claim it is.

Norman: Can you show, that homosexuality is less dangerous than heterosexuality?

If it was as obvious as you claim, why have you not even been able to show it is true, let alone obvious?
All you have cited is an opinion piece and some stats on AIDS.

Norman: I am the one who gave Robert a website with statistics of HIV and homosexuality. This is not opinion, these are facts. Read it and tell me why you think this is?
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm

So what we see is that you are most excellent at ratifying your beliefs, but royally suck at convincing non-choir members.

Norman: You have not been excellent in ratifying your belief's Mestemia. So, you are an ace in the whole of Persuasive Communication?

 

[Jainarayan]

could you say with a straight face

I cee wut u did thair.

 

[Jainarayan]

yes.

Why?