Political Crossfire Forums

[Sataere]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Firstly, homosexuality is not natural.

Guess again, here are the infamous gay penguins for you:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1275591.html

Demonic Spoon wrote: Biologically, sex is for reproduction.

No... if sex was purely for reproduction, then condoms, birth control, and abortion would never exist! Sex among humans is predominantly for pleasure. Humans, bonobos, and dolphins are the only three animals that have sex for pleasure, as well as reproduction.

[Enoch]

LDA wrote: feederband wrote: Gays should not be able to be married. They can be together as far as I'm concerned....Call it something else just not marriage... :wink:

This time of thinking doesn't go over so well with most gays. When you bring up the fact that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, they will probably note that you are absolutely insane. It isn't enough to have something that is exactly like marriage; the definition of the word must be changed. There's a good reason for this. If the definition of marriage can be changed to include same-sex relationships, then they've accomplished a few things. First, they've defeated the English language. Secondly, they have essentially "stolen" the word, and as a result of that, can rub it in the face of everyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality.

We are trying to "defeat" the English language? Since when is language an entity that can be defeated? You are grasping for straws here.

Second, I love how you assume that we are fighting for equality out of some sort of attempt to "rub it in the face of everyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality." Since when is equality about throwing things in people's faces? The reality is, whether you like it or not, all we want is to have equality and to be left alone. That's it. Period.

[Sage Orator]

snakeartemis wrote: Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate.

The main reason is to procreate? Let me pose some questions then; Should we not have sex in attempts to make children at all times? Why do people have to get married to procreate? I believe that according to your definition people who marry but do not procreate are not fulfilling the purpose of marriage and I right? Shouldn't all people who get married have to make a vow to try to have children?
Quote: If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality.
Interesting point that you try to make. The facts are that a man that is a homosexual can be a sperm donor as a lesbian can receive a donation. There is also adoption for homosexual couples, providing the children with a nurturing environment, I suppose that isn't helping society.

Quote: I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.
I see, so the many couples that are married an cannot biologically or safely have children should not get benefits because they can't have children. Correct me if I am wrong on your opinion.

Quote: Unnatural behavior lead to unnatural circumstances…


More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981
Infinite, your claim that homosexuals started the AIDS virus is plain wrong.AIDS origins It is more easily transmitted through anal sex but nothing further. Admittedly the first cases did start in New York with homosexuals but this can be explained with other evidence.
Misc. info, that explanation.In addition only 51% of people who have AIDS are homosexuals. So it is not a homosexual only disease. Out of those 25 million only 13 million have been homosexuals.

[lululauren]

snakeartemis wrote: I am beginning to find that when many of our left wing friends start losing an argument or when they can not logically argue with the statement, they resort to disecting the piece and spewing accusations on the writer for being 'close minded', 'a redneck', or as 'boorish.' I just wanted to point out that out because it is quite funny if you think about it.

See now that was an incredibly ignorant, "close minded", "redneck" and "boorish" thing to say. "Crazy left wing liberals" aren't losing any arguments about this. Crazy right wing conservatives aren't "losing" the argument either - they're just showing how incredibly ignorant and forceful they are when it comes to playing "god" and controlling someone else's life.

It's funny to *me* that when many of our "right wing friends" start to feel cornered on their bible forced opinions - they resort to laughing and saying "I knew you couldn't give any proof to your argument" or "That's classified information" or my favorite "I don't feel comfortable discussing something that hasn't been confirmed".

So fine... laugh and go hide in your corner with your bible and your twisted, controlling feelings. I just thought I would let you know that you're not hurting any of us "crazy liberals" when you claim that we're losing an argument... :roll:

snakeartemis wrote: Anyways, marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage or 'civil union' is to procreate.

That's interesting. I thought that the idea of marriage was to spend the rest of your life with your soul mate and person that you can't live without.

I didn't realize it was strictly to "procreate". If that's the case then marriage is strictly to w**** yourself to an individual to make children who will grow up to w**** themselves to an individual. And the process continues.

snakeartemis wrote: If any of you can show me how to make a man impregnate another man, I will immediately retract any and all of my statements regarding the moral and social incorrectness of homosexuality. But since none of you can show me that, because it is biologically impossible, my case stands.

So your case only stands for gay couples then? It doesn't stand for lesbian couples who can BOTH become pregnant at a sperm bank? Okay so then that makes me wonder why it's okay for women to f**k one another but not men. I assume it's because most men think that woman on woman action is hot... therefore lesbianism is okay... but not being gay. Your case doesn't stand at all - it's all misguided, selfish thoughts that you think that EVERYONE should have to follow because YOUR god "told" you that it's "wrong" and "sinful". Or maybe it's strictly because you get all antsy inside and get those weird tingly feelings when you think about sex with someone of the same sex.

Those feelings in your head that say "I can't do this because god won't love me" that argue with the feelings in your heart saying "But I'm just so curious". I just don't understand people like you. People who just can't give up and let someone else be happy. By you saying "It's alright for gay couples to love one another, get married and adopt children" does not in any way at all say that you are in fact gay... or that you even agree with the lifestyle. Having the nuts to stand up and say "I couldn't do it, but if that's what makes you happy then go for it" is what makes a real person. An honest, tolerable, DECENT person.

snakeartemis wrote: I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supporting children that come from the couples' loins, not adoption. I know that some people adopt, but the biological possibility for conception is still there.

I thought of how to reply to this... and all I could come up with is shut up. Honestly, just shut up. "I also wish to point out that the reason that married couples get governmental benefits is because they have the possibility of supoorting children that from the couples' loins..." is so twisted. If two men got married they could, in fact, from their own loins have children. They can find a surrogate mother and get an egg from a a female friend... or from a "donated egg"... or anything and have a child FROM THEIR LOINS. Two women can get married and go to a sperm bank and have children from their LOINS. Your statement also suggests that this government doesn't support people who adopt children. If that was the case then all foster centers would be illegal and being shut down left and right. Abortion wouldn't be an issue because this government would want all woman to not have children unless they could GUARANTEE they would forever be the mother of the child. That for whatever reason they would never give that child up for adoption...

You claim that left wingers can't support anything they say. EVERYTHING you've said in this post was pulled directly out of your butt. I don't understand people like you.

[Æ]

Does the church have a monopoly on marriage? If that's so, does a marriage law respect an established religion? Does the established religion get a tangible benefit from marrying someone that they would not have gotten had the marriage not taken place? These are questions that must be answered when it comes to any kind of marriage.

[connermt]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: anybody ever look up parthenogenesis? some species don't even have males in them.


What does that have to do with two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease?

Anal sex has nothing to do about disease. Straight couples have anal sex as well - does that mean they should get AIDS as well? Straight couples also contract all kinds of different diseases. So, this implied logic, if AIDS is from gay people, then all other STDs must be from straight people?!? It is also interesting that you only point out male on male sex, but say nothing about female on female sex - double standard in some people's eyes.
It was stated homosexuality wasn't natural, but it was shown that homosexuality does occure in nature. If someone states something is or is not natural, then one must look to nature to support this arguement. And nature supports the arguement that homosexuality IS natural (happening in nature). If being gay was a choice, then it wouldn't happen in nature, as nature is ruled by instint.