• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sexuality and Choice...

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
to your bolded underlined statement, homosexuality itself may not cost more, but your insistence on trying to force people to accept it as "normal" cost hundreds of millions, even billions. Everything was great until you convinced yourselves homosexual behavior is normal.
Proposition 8 - Tracking the money -- latimes.com

Black people marrying and breeding with whiote people was once thought the same

Women having orgasms resulted in full frontal labotomies less than a century ago in USA

and yet.... you propose things shouldnt change....

:facepalm:

If that is your wife or girlfriend in your picture, you do realise that people would have spat on you in USA for being a couple, once.... much like you are doing now towards a MINORITY (ie very small number) of the population.

....

I still ask, what has JESUS got to do with promoting gay people and its effect on the GDP?

bugs-bunny-debut-1.jpg
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
America has a concept, seperation of church and state
The separation of church and state was enacted to prevent a national religion from being formed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were no provisions stating political stances cannot be backed by religious views. Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and used government monies to preach religion to the Native Americans.
But that is for a separate debate. please feel free to make a different thread.

Law makers were actually RUNNING screaming from fundamnetalist views that wanted a theocracy...views such as YOURS
I have not promoted morality or religious view points in respect to homosexual behavior in this entire thread.

I reject bigotry
Same here. I have not persecuted anyone for being a homosexual. I know the difference between predisposition to certain behaviors and acting on them.

which is why IO mentioned rights,
IO mentioned rights?
IO, the priestess of Hera who became one of the lovers of Zeus.? ;)

how women were only recently allowed to vote
how black americans were only recently allowed in "white schools"
how asian americans were even considered homosapiens

Your arguemnts amount to the same thing
Ethnicity and gender are not behavioral.

I thought you were going to stop posting?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
No it has not, You have failed to provide evidence that homosexuality is "normal." If it were "Normal" the human race would have died out long ago.
You are confusing normalcy with predominance. There are many ways to be "normal." It is normal for some people to be left-handed, and it is normal for some people to be homosexual. The fact that it is normal for some people to be homosexual does not mean it is normal for everyone to be homosexual.
Actually, Marriage is not a right.
You keep saying that, but the Supreme Court keeps ruling the opposite.quote]and that is what the current debate is about at a legal level. Most people for traditional marriage make arguments based on religious convictions. My arguments are based genetics and social/economic good for the world.[/quote] They are, but they suck, so it doesn't matter.

It is socially/economically good for the world for some people NOT to have children.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Black people marrying and breeding with whiote people was once thought the same
Ethnicity is not behavioral.

Women having orgasms resulted in full frontal labotomies less than a century ago in USA
Barbaric actions taken by insecure men and very disgraceful

and yet.... you propose things shouldnt change....
Not when based on behavioral abnormality.

If that is your wife or girlfriend in your picture, you do realise that people would have spat on you in USA for being a couple, once.... much like you are doing now towards a MINORITY (ie very small number) of the population.
Ethnic persecution is wrong was always wrong.
A Minority who organize themselves based on a behavioral abnormality?:rolleyes:

I still ask, what has JESUS got to do with promoting gay people and its effect on the GDP?
And you continue to insist on bringing religious ideals into this debate.
I have not once based any of my views expressed here on religious ideals.:sleep:
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
I thought you were going to stop posting?


Ok, just tell me what Jesus has to do with a better GDP?

and how two people having sex, where one does not have a penis
is a drain on society? Oh, yes, promotion ...:facepalm:

Its over to Jesus then, to promote the gay agenda of lowering the GDP:facepalm:
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Ok, just tell me what Jesus has to do with a better GDP?

and how two people having sex, where one does not have a penis
is a drain on society? Oh, yes, promotion ...:facepalm:

Its over to Jesus then, to promote the gay agenda of lowering the GDP:facepalm:
How is this even relevant in our conversation?
Again, I have not once based any of my views expressed here on religious ideals.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The homosexual expects to gain sexual gratification and favors much as with drug addiction. With heterosexual contact, there is the strong possibility that the participants are looking simply to have a baby as a married couple.
Plenty of women will screw a male dealer for a rock of crack. And lots of straight people, chances are pretty good they are just looking for a one night fling.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
I have not once based any of my views expressed here on religious ideals.:sleep:

um your pseudo scientific ideas that we NEED to breed are based on religion....

biologically breeding is rahter small...

consider how many sperms actually dont meet an egg...billions...and billions
consider how in nature alpha groups ensure only certain people breed....sadly in homosapiens stupid people can breed too......but should they? when they in turn, just promote the circle of poverty, you see ....breeding can be a drain on society too....

You really just are arguing, greater numbers= more money and a better society
Yeah.... tell that to china
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
You are confusing normalcy with predominance. There are many ways to be "normal." It is normal for some people to be left-handed, and it is normal for some people to be homosexual. The fact that it is normal for some people to be homosexual does not mean it is normal for everyone to be homosexual.
You keep saying that, but the Supreme Court keeps ruling the opposite.quote]and that is what the current debate is about at a legal level. Most people for traditional marriage make arguments based on religious convictions. My arguments are based genetics and social/economic good for the world.
They are, but they suck, so it doesn't matter.

It is socially/economically good for the world for some people NOT to have children.[/quote]
+
quoted for certain people to see
 

Perfect Circle

Just Browsing
No it has not, You have failed to provide evidence that homosexuality is "normal." If it were "Normal" the human race would have died out long ago.

I don't understand why normalcy is even part of the conversation. What does that have to do with anything anyway? It's not normal for people to not want kids after marriage, yet those people are allowed to marry. Should those people be allowed to marry? They won't reproduce, and it will be behavioral. How is it different that a homosexual couple?

Actually, Marriage is not a right. and that is what the current debate is about at a legal level.

That's odd, because as Auto has pointed out, the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you. Seeing as how they are the ultimate authority on interpreting legislation, I'm inclined to agree. See below the court decision of Loving v. Virginia (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Replace "race" with any attribute you like, and the statement holds. Hair color, height, music preference, fertility... or sex. Do you see how this applies? Obviously normalcy was not taken into account for the decision, because it sure wasn't normal for different races to marry at the time.

So there you go. Marriage is, IN FACT, a RIGHT. If you don't believe me, feel free to contact the supreme court.

Most people for traditional marriage make arguments based on religious convictions. My arguments are based genetics and social/economic good for the world.

I understand this, and commend your attempt to be rational about the subject. However, your argument is clearly flawed, and you'd be wise to accept that and simply argue from a religious stance.
 
Last edited:

Perfect Circle

Just Browsing
to your bolded underlined statement, homosexuality itself may not cost more, but your insistence on trying to force people to accept it as "normal" cost hundreds of millions, even billions. Everything was great until you convinced yourselves homosexual behavior is normal.
Proposition 8 - Tracking the money -- latimes.com

Were you being serious when you wrote this? I hope not. This boils down to "Why not just let things be the way they are. They've been just fine for years, and obviously, it's not affecting my life much."

I live in Alabama, and it wasn't legal for my cousin to marry her black boyfriend until the year 2000. Doesn't that sound absolutely ridiculous to you? The only reason that law stayed on the books so long is because of people who said the exact same thing you did. They may not have had a radical, racist agenda, but they felt comfortable where they were and would rather not have the status-quo tampered with because it made them feel icky...

Basically... You just don't want anyone to "rock the boat."
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
This is exactly how people will react in 10 years when we bring up homosexual marriages. It will seem so ridiculously close minded and bigoted as to elicit a face-palm...

let us hope so....

cause frankly, I really dont see what is wrong with promoting committed loving couples

as, unless I am wrong, that IS why people get married

oh and tax reasons :p
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
let us hope so....

cause frankly, I really dont see what is wrong with promoting committed loving couples

as, unless I am wrong, that IS why people get married

oh and tax reasons :p

Tell them to go to a lawyer and form a partnership, but marriage is between two people of the opposite sex which may result in begetting of children. The tax benifits exist to promote child raising and not sexual agendas....
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
I don't understand why normalcy is even part of the conversation. What does that have to do with anything anyway? It's not normal for people to not want kids after marriage, yet those people are allowed to marry. Should those people be allowed to marry? They won't reproduce, and it will be behavioral. How is it different that a homosexual couple?
I have already told you that I believe they are selfish and ignorant to the fact that someone gave birth to them so they could be alive.:(

That's odd, because as Auto has pointed out, the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you. Seeing as how they are the ultimate authority on interpreting legislation, I'm inclined to agree. See below the court decision of Loving v. Virginia (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Replace "race" with any attribute you like, and the statement holds. Hair color, height, music preference, fertility... or sex. Do you see how this applies? Obviously normalcy was not taken into account for the decision, because it sure wasn't normal for different races to marry at the time.

So there you go. Marriage is, IN FACT, a RIGHT. If you don't believe me, feel free to contact the supreme court.

I understand this, and commend your attempt to be rational about the subject. However, your argument is clearly flawed, and you'd be wise to accept that and simply argue from a religious stance.
Again you are equating race to homosexual behavior. It cannot compare because Ethnicity is not behavioral. Homosexuality is not an ethnicity, IF it were confined to a single ethnic group you could make these claims, but it does not, so you cannot.

Let me highlight something for you from your quote
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Homosexual marriage does not uphold survival of the human race and therefore is not applicable. :no:
 
Top