Conquer Club

unriggable wrote:http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

I'm sorry, but I've already proven that you're a high school idiot who just posts random things that you want to believe in. If you had even an ounce of credibility you would do more research than just quoting something without considering any other point of view.

Homosexuals are getting tired of saying they were born that way

Grow up

bradleybadly wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for homosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. It is an unnatural behavior. You don't have to be a Christian to support traditional marriage of a man and woman marrying.

Of course if you don't support homosexuals getting married to each other then you get labeled as a bigot. It's one of the tricks of the left. They try to equate the civil rights struggle in America with giving people of the same sex the right to marry. Blacks didn't choose to be black, they were born that way. Homosexuals choose their behavior. Before you bleeding heart idiots start asking me "did you choose to be heterosexual the answer is 'no' because being attracted to the opposite sex is natural.

Slavery used to be legal but that never made it legitimate. Making homosexual marriage legal doesn't make it right either. You're just trying to make something that is unnatural look natural. Then you probably go pat yourselves on the back thinking that you're so moral.

Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for heterosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. All you rightie idiots keep saying that "unnatural" is bad. Taking antibiotics when you are sick is unnatural, but I'm sure you don't want to give those up. Air conditioning is unnatural, but most people enjoy that. Nuclear power is unnatural, but conservatives love it. I have serious doubts that you can even prove what unnatural really means in the context of genetics, so any attempt to "prove" anything to you might be useless.

And your attempt to defend yourself from being called a bigot is pointless. You are attempting to justify giving a segment of the human population fewer rights than another. Can you imagine if I shepherded a bill through Congress that said that Christians couldn't marry? Me saying that Christians choose to be Christians wouldn't stop all hell from breaking loose. You aren't born a Christian (well, depending on your sect), and you must make that choice. It would be wrong, and I would (rightfully) be labeled a bigot. Regardless of if they can choose to be gay or if they are genetificationically gay, denying them a civil right would mark you as a bigot.

EDIT: Whoo! Incomplete sentences! Fixed...

bradleybadly wrote:

unriggable wrote:http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

I'm sorry, but I've already proven that you're a high school idiot who just posts random things that you want to believe in. If you had even an ounce of credibility you would do more research than just quoting something without considering any other point of view.

Homosexuals are getting tired of saying they were born that way

Grow up

Gee, that's mature. Debate like an American.

"These scientific results lead us directly to the conclusion that homosexuality is as much a choice as stubborness, which as we now know is completely genetic."

"f*ck you."

bradleybadly wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for homosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. It is an unnatural behavior.

So despite the many examples of it you still claim it's unnatural?
See, if you just said it was immoral it would be kinda of okay, but seriously it's entirely normal and expected behaviour.
As Unriggable posted, homosexual behaviour is normal and there's a genetic reason for it.

You don't have to be a Christian to support traditional marriage of a man and woman marrying.

Yes you do. (Or any other religion.)

Of course if you don't support homosexuals getting married to each other then you get labeled as a bigot.

Because you are. Honestly, I call the cat what itt is.

It's one of the tricks of the left.

Oooooh, yes. The left is behind everything you motherfuckers don't agree with.
This kind of argument is stupid as The Left is behind everything ranging from evolution to global warming and socialism. When you have no proof for your position you just point fingers at the left as if they're the ones behind everything.

They try to equate the civil rights struggle in America with giving people of the same sex the right to marry. Blacks didn't choose to be black, they were born that way. Homosexuals choose their behavior.

No they fucking didn't. I'm not a "bleeding heart idiot" but I fucking acknowledge that anyone choosing to be gay when their environment is totally against gays isn't doing it just to be different. I know gay people and they didn't choose it.[
quote]
Before you bleeding heart idiots start asking me "did you choose to be heterosexual the answer is 'no' because being attracted to the opposite sex is natural.
[/quote]
As natural as being gay.

Slavery used to be legal but that never made it legitimate. Making homosexual marriage legal doesn't make it right either. You're just trying to make something that is unnatural look natural. Then you probably go pat yourselves on the back thinking that you're so moral.

Go f*ck yourself and get back here when you actually have an argument instead of pointless rhetoric. It's not fucking unnatural and you need to consider other viewpoints instead of just letting yourself be patted on the back by your other fundamentalist friends.

bradleybadly wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for homosexuality then you can't say that it is natural.

Heh, y'see the problem is that we actually can. Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is not 'chosen' behaivour, it's a psychological predisposition.
I know that doesn't sit easy with your beliefs and all, but that's just the way it is and denial is a pretty poor way of coping with that.

bradleybadly wrote:being attracted to the opposite sex is natural.

Slavery used to be legal but that never made it legitimate. You're just trying to make something that is unnatural look natural.

Are you aware that the ancient Romans regarded slavery as 'natural'? Go check the institutes of Gaius and Justinian if you don't believe me... right there in their legal codes it is, "Natural Law says - Slavery Good".

Do you get what I'm trying to say here? Or do I have to be a bit more blunt to get the point across? Who are you to declare what is and isn't natural? Your opinions about what is and isn't natural are based entirely on your upbringing, and history shows us that your upbringing will probably be regarded as barbaric and ridiculous in a hundred years time.

Again, in the nicest way possible, how many homosexuals do you actually know and/or fraternise with?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

So are you saying marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children?

It is also question of public recognition of a couple or family. Besides, the fact is also that these couples could have children, whereas gays cannot.

I do however for there to be a proper marriage, the possibility of children must be envisaged, for me, for both moral and religious reasons, this is essential.

What about heterosexual couples who are sterile? Can they not marry?

Damn... too many of us responding to the same post... you might think that implies something very wrong with what was said. Or that we bleeding hearts are all complicit in not knowing what the hell we're talking about.

Gangbang, anyone?

Neoteny wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for heterosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. All you rightie idiots keep saying that "unnatural" is bad. Taking antibiotics when you are sick is unnatural, but I'm sure you don't want to give those up. Air conditioning is unnatural, but most people enjoy that. Nuclear power is unnatural, but conservatives love it. I have serious doubts that you can even prove what unnatural really means in the context of genetics, so any attempt to "prove" anything to you might be useless.

And your attempt to defend yourself from being called a bigot is pointless. You are attempting to justify giving a segment of the human population fewer rights than another. Can you imagine if I shepherded a bill through Congress that said that Christians couldn't marry? Me saying that Christians choose to be Christians wouldn't stop all hell from breaking loose. You aren't born a Christian (well, depending on your sect), and you must make that choice. It would be wrong, and I would (rightfully) be labeled a bigot. Regardless of if they can choose to be gay or if they are genetificationically gay, denying them a civil right would mark you as a bigot.

Awesome.

Neoteny wrote:Damn... too many of us responding to the same post... you might think that implies something very wrong with what was said. Or that we bleeding hearts are all complicit in not knowing what the hell we're talking about.

Gangbang, anyone?

I'm up for it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for heterosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. All you rightie idiots keep saying that "unnatural" is bad. Taking antibiotics when you are sick is unnatural, but I'm sure you don't want to give those up. Air conditioning is unnatural, but most people enjoy that. Nuclear power is unnatural, but conservatives love it. I have serious doubts that you can even prove what unnatural really means in the context of genetics, so any attempt to "prove" anything to you might be useless.

And your attempt to defend yourself from being called a bigot is pointless. You are attempting to justify giving a segment of the human population fewer rights than another. Can you imagine if I shepherded a bill through Congress that said that Christians couldn't marry? Me saying that Christians choose to be Christians wouldn't stop all hell from breaking loose. You aren't born a Christian (well, depending on your sect), and you must make that choice. It would be wrong, and I would (rightfully) be labeled a bigot. Regardless of if they can choose to be gay or if they are genetificationically gay, denying them a civil right would mark you as a bigot.

Awesome.

Awesome response.

Guiscard wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for heterosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. All you rightie idiots keep saying that "unnatural" is bad. Taking antibiotics when you are sick is unnatural, but I'm sure you don't want to give those up. Air conditioning is unnatural, but most people enjoy that. Nuclear power is unnatural, but conservatives love it. I have serious doubts that you can even prove what unnatural really means in the context of genetics, so any attempt to "prove" anything to you might be useless.

And your attempt to defend yourself from being called a bigot is pointless. You are attempting to justify giving a segment of the human population fewer rights than another. Can you imagine if I shepherded a bill through Congress that said that Christians couldn't marry? Me saying that Christians choose to be Christians wouldn't stop all hell from breaking loose. You aren't born a Christian (well, depending on your sect), and you must make that choice. It would be wrong, and I would (rightfully) be labeled a bigot. Regardless of if they can choose to be gay or if they are genetificationically gay, denying them a civil right would mark you as a bigot.

Awesome.

Awesome response.

I didn't know what to add.

Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

unriggable wrote:Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

Gee, thanks, I guess I'll just take my "shitty" debate skills elsewhere.

unriggable wrote:Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

Dude! Don't scare away the opposition! A debate isn't fun with only one side!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

unriggable wrote:Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

Gee, thanks, I guess I'll just take my "shitty" debate skills elsewhere.

Muy, you're the best debater on your side actually.

Snorri1234 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

unriggable wrote:Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

Gee, thanks, I guess I'll just take my "shitty" debate skills elsewhere.

Muy, you're the best debater on your side actually.

He and CA tend to be the most level-headed, I think.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

unriggable wrote:Why are all of the dudes against gay marriage shitty debaters?

Gee, thanks, I guess I'll just take my "shitty" debate skills elsewhere.

Oh, forgot about you. I was thinking of brad and norse.

muy_thaiguy wrote:"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (Socialism), teach a man to fish, he eats for life." Simple really, just saying that people need to learn to rely on themselves and not others to do things, which shows responsibility and maturity.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Who ever said the government should teach everyone to do everything? I know I didn't...And that phrase, as I guess I have to put it, says that when your boss or parent teaches you something, you'll be able to take care of yourself instead of relying on handouts.

Oh I see...by socialism you meant handouts...my bad.

Virtually everyone posting here is for allowing gay marriage, but yet the poll speaks differently. Sounds pretty two faced to me, when if able to be identified you take the side that draws the least criticism, but when voting anonymously, you say the opposite. Is everyone who voted against gay marriage not posting or something, or am I missing something?

Jamie wrote:Virtually everyone posting here is for allowing gay marriage, but yet the poll speaks differently. Sounds pretty two faced to me, when if able to be identified you take the side that draws the least criticism, but when voting anonymously, you say the opposite. Is everyone who voted against gay marriage not posting or something, or am I missing something?

I voted for it, but maybe people who said no don't feel as adamant about it...

Or they are just too lazy to say something...who knows.

It's pretty much the same people arguing... so I'd say given the broadness of the groups who voted, it's not that improbable that these people voted in ordinance with what they are saying.

honestly although i disagree with them, i could understand why people who would not want gay marriage to be allowed wouldnt post. Its certainly one thing to have a belief or at least have a feeling about something. Its another thing entirely to post an argument about something, against people who might deride you for your stance.

got tonkaed wrote:honestly although i disagree with them, i could understand why people who would not want gay marriage to be allowed wouldnt post. Its certainly one thing to have a belief or at least have a feeling about something. Its another thing entirely to post an argument about something, against people who might deride you for your stance.

true

ritz627 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:honestly although i disagree with them, i could understand why people who would not want gay marriage to be allowed wouldnt post. Its certainly one thing to have a belief or at least have a feeling about something. Its another thing entirely to post an argument about something, against people who might deride you for your stance.

true

Not to mention 170 people have voted. How many of those are actually posting? Maybe there is a tendency for one side to be more or less outspoken than the other for demographic reasons. Any professional pollster knows that demography is intensely important when polling, particularly due to bias.

the_fatty wrote:3. if everyone was gay, then humans would be extict (no reprodution)

I didn't bother to read all this so forgive me if this has already been covered...

This statement is false.

I have posted but not voted yet...

I can't understand why the sanctity of Religious Marriage should be for everyone if you are only using it to have the same rights as the Religious Sect.

Do Judges use the bible to marry? If not, then I don't see why Gays can't be married.

But just to be married because you want to change society, that is not a good reason for marriage, that was not the purpose of marriage.

To have equal Rights, as far as taxes, death, children and so on YES that is a good reason to have a Civil Union.

But just to be married for the sake of " I want what straight people have" is ridiculous to me.