Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Why are we now talking about homosexuals? The question was drivel about heterosexuals.
The topic of homosexuals was bound to arise but the nature of the OP. But if you have a problem with a post then report it.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are we now talking about homosexuals? The question was drivel about heterosexuals.
By homosexuals breeding, I mean two homosexuals of the same gender. Two males or two females. But my main point is that heterosexuals are not the cause of the problems of the world. Sure heterosexuals can do harm, but does that mean they wouldn't do as much harm if they were homosexual?
I think we all know that same gender sex will not produce offspring. But thanks for pointing out the obvious.
fantôme profane;1384791 said:I think your logic on this one is flawless. It is very clear and indisputable that most of the major problems that people face are caused by people, and most people are caused by heterosexual breeding, therefore most of the problems are caused by heterosexual breeding.
Of course there is definitely something very very wrong with this idea. But it is not the logic.
I really don't understand why you don't understand my repeated point: A homosexual can choose to have sex with a person of the opposite sex without being at all sexually attracted to them. It happens.If homosexuals bred with people of other genders they would not be homosexual, at least not fully.
I really don't understand why you don't understand my repeated point: A homosexual can choose to have sex with a person of the opposite sex without being at all sexually attracted to them. It happens.
Only a select homoerotic population of homeless hunter-gathers should be allowed to breed amongst a captive heterosexual population.Should Heterosexuals Be Allowed to Breed?
No.
I've always said that if heterosexuals would just stop having kids for just one or two generations, most of the worlds problems would go away.
Only a select homoerotic population of homeless hunter-gathers should be allowed to breed amongst a captive heterosexual population.
Interesting. But I think the flaw is so much bigger than that, so much more fundamental.I consider it flawed because it only pertains to heterosexual breeding. If two homosexuals have a child says a gay man and a gay woman there is no promise simply because they are gay that their offspring will turn out significantly different then a heterosexuals offspring. Really if he had said just breeding then it would be flawless. It's not the element of heterosexuality it something else that is independent of gender preference of the parents. I suggested just natural stupidity which could happen in either homosexual breeding or heterosexual breeding.
We should put them in charge of all breeding since they are doing such a good job running the Child Support Agency:sarcasticthat's actually what I meant to say.
We should put them in charge of all breeding since they are doing such a good job running the Child Support Agency:sarcastic
Just wait till you get to know them.the Child Suppot Agencies are being run by a select homoerotic population of homeless hunter-gathers?
I thought all beurocracies were being run by soulless, androgenous, mis-anthropic androids.
fantôme profane;1384837 said:Interesting. But I think the flaw is so much bigger than that, so much more fundamental.
If only homosexuals were allowed to breed then we would have much fewer people breeding, resulting in much fewer people. If people are the cause of the problems then fewer people would result in fewer problems. The logic is still flawless
And the idea is still flawed.
I think you should move this to the "Jokes" section. Because that is all it is, and a bad one at that.