Observer Posted July 9, 2006 Author Share Posted July 9, 2006 The argument that can not be refuted is the NATURAL one... Nature has a way of keeping animals that are not supposed to reproduce from doing so. If it was "natural" then humans would be able to produce offspring with Male/Male & Female/Female couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by woodgie07How are gay men any more likely to contract HIV when they are married as opposed to when they are sleeping around with several partners? That makes no sense at all. If anything, this would make the HIV rate go down, thus helping the health industry. Not nesscaraily. Gay men married or not along with that higher rate of HIV is also more likely at a higher rate to contract other sexually transmitted diseases. What I find out was even more crazy; Heterosexual couples are 2-10 times more likely to contract an STD than Lesbian Partners. Go figure on that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino2K Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Originally posted by Observer Nature has a way of keeping animals that are not supposed to reproduce from doing so. Then here's your argument for gay marriage. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by KirtFalconHow about it's not natural. It destroys the core family and is counterproductive for society. It's easy to dismiss God's plan because it's meaningless to you at this point in your life, but you can't truly understand this issue and many other moral issues when you totally reject God. :whistle: How are ignorance and faith related? I do not believe it is correct to say that I cannot understand many moral issues because I do not believe in god. Actually, it is you Christians who think you can get away with anything because you can ask for god's forgiveness. Kirt, anything is capable of destroying the core family. When a man or a woman with children remarries after their original spouse dies, the core family can be destroyed. Should we also ban heterosexual people from marrying a second time? Also, what is so counter-productive about two people loving one another? Would you agree that your marriage (assuming that you are married, of course) is doing more bad than good for society? Of course not. Why is it any different when two men or women marry? Originally posted by ObserverThe argument that can not be refuted is the NATURAL one... Nature has a way of keeping animals that are not supposed to reproduce from doing so. If it was "natural" then humans would be able to produce offspring with Male/Male & Female/Female couples. Observer, there are several things in life that are not natural. Automobiles are not natural, yet my guess is that you travel to work in one every day. Artificial insemenation is not natural, yet several women are impregnated this way every day. Mules are not natural, yet they are used to help humans every day. Just because something is not natural does not mean that it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 Everything you listed was CREATED by man.... And NOT natural... All created to HELP humans with their day to day life.... Is that how we should look at "alternative lifestyle" humans? You logic is flawed.... Automobiles compared to humans? Mules.... created by man.... NOT viable in nature If you truely believe in your own logic then we would not have any RX medications, no electricity... no TV ... turn off your computer... LOL Your argument does not counter the NOT Natural arguement.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Yes it does. Man-made is not natural. Alternative lifestyle (homosexuality and such) is man-made, as are all of the things I listed. You know, it was your logic that non-natural things were bad. I have no problem with non-natural things. Therefore, you turn off your computer, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 I have NO problem with non-natural things that HELP the species! How does your alternative lifestyle help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by ObserverI have NO problem with non-natural things that HELP the species! How does your alternative lifestyle help? How does it hurt? It does'nt have to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colligula Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by DLine06Because of the history. Every nation that was once in power over the years declined due to economic/finances, fighting ability and homosexuality. A great example is the Roman Empire. It definitly didnt have anything to do with lead plumbing:lol:, or the hundreds of other reasons the Romans couldnt keep their empire in one piece (literally) ... Those gays were responsible for the fall of the roman empire. (you should take just about everything you learn in high school with a grain of salt). Im not trying to be a jerk, but saying that homosexuality is paritally repsonsible for the fall of every great empire, tells me that you still have a lot of history classes waiting to prove you wrong. I dont understand why everyone thinks homosexuality is un-natural. I know most of you conservatives are pretty boring, but there are plenty of things that heterosexual people do that dont produce offspring. You guys should read up on homosexuality in Ancient Greece (the founders of modern thought). They were quite a bit smarter than us, and they didnt have much of a problem with it.(or pedofelia for that matter) :sick: ALL scientific, biological, and anthropological data proves that homosexuality is not some rare phenomenom of immorality, but just another physical difference that the weak minded are incapable of rationalizing with an outdated, misinterpreted theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeuceChunker03 Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by KirtFalconHow about it's not natural. It destroys the core family and is counterproductive for society. It's easy to dismiss God's plan because it's meaningless to you at this point in your life, but you can't truly understand this issue and many other moral issues when you totally reject God. :whistle: How is two guys wanting to say they are married counterproductive for society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 The most obvious... It cost more money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeuceChunker03 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 What costs more money? Maybe I'm missing something here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 Well It starts with the fact that when two males are recognized as a couple it will cost companies money for benefits... it will then cost the government money for benefit... And with a higher risk for illness ....it will cost more money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colligula Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Well its more expensive to employ adults with children, so I guess human reproduction is counter productive for society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Originally posted by ColligulaALL scientific, biological, and anthropological data proves that homosexuality is not some rare phenomenom of immorality, but just another physical difference that the weak minded are incapable of rationalizing with an outdated, misinterpreted theology. Nope... The argument on the science is that if it's natural, than you should be able to produce offspring with the same sex. Even with creatures, anomeba, etc that are asexual, do meitosis of the cells that allows them to split apart so that they would create two because of this type of reproduction which includes BOTH (male and female cells). Re-read my post. I listed several other factors along with adding the homosexuality and I never said it being the #1 thing. People brought up examples of interracial dating and marriage and how that was a social issue... There's a difference: It involved a man and a woman when you take away the color barrier. Above all I also listed the cost situation that apparently only certain people got about the health industry put into a lose-lose situation between the pharmaceuticals and the patients that need them. Keep in mind that this is more towards the men... I'm still trying to figure out how gay couples in women is 2-10 times unlikely to contract HIV nor STD's then that of a heterosexual couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'm still trying to figure out your source on that information, DLine. I am not sure what makes married gay men so much more susceptible to illness than bachelor gay men. How does gay marriage affect any of you personally? What changes would occur in your life if a gay couple were able to marry? And yes, Colligula, having children is counter-productive to society, especially when that child grows up to be a hardcore conservative or liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colligula Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Originally posted by DLine06 Nope... The argument on the science is that if it's natural, than you should be able to produce offspring with the same sex. Nope... homosexuality in many species has occured naturally since the begining of time. I had the same misconception, and by your same logic any other form of sexual activity (which i will not list since this is a family site) would also be unnatural because it doesnt produce offspring Heres a funny list i tried to post last time we were on this topic. But then someone intentionally got the post banned. Top 13 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong 13. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. 12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents. 11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights. 7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups. 5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 1. METEORS and VOLCANOES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Good post Colligula. You forgot Cats and Dogs living together.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 If the idea that homosexual activity is not natural is simply a "Social Issue" like racial discrimination was then please explain where the line is drawn? How can you limit the number of wives? How can you limit sexual relations with animals? Can you marry a goat? Does the goat get your Social Security benefits when you die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Originally posted by ObserverIf the idea that homosexual activity is not natural is simply a "Social Issue" like racial discrimination was then please explain where the line is drawn? How can you limit the number of wives? How can you limit sexual relations with animals? Can you marry a goat? Does the goat get your Social Security benefits when you die? Is the goat a human? How can you compare animals with humans? Are you saying that homosexuals are the equvilent of animals? I also could care less if a man is dumb enough to have several wife's. If it is his belief who am I to argue. You want us to follow your belief's yet you mock others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Personally it wouldn't bother me other than the medical side of it: health insurance, perscriptions, etc. woodgie as far as that source, one of the points it illiustrated was that on the average most women have healthier practices than men, men are more liable to certain STD's such as HIV where as women are more inclined to other STD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 As far as the natural part, that stuff came later on through time and the progression of homosexuality. The whole purpose of intercourse was that man marries woman has it for the first time where they remain clean and pure. To get just an inch deeper (trying to respect the discresion of the site) varying from the original raises your chances of STD's. The species... well Darwin's theory of natural selection and the strongest of the species... you can draw the conclusions. On the reasons: 12. there are a bunch of single parents that through the struggles raised children to become a success. On 10. believe it or not, there are some gay parents that raise children and are good at it. Some of the kids don't turn out to be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Please trim down the quote boxes a little.....:rolleyes: Good discussion, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodgie07 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Originally posted by DLine06Personally it wouldn't bother me other than the medical side of it: health insurance, perscriptions, etc. woodgie as far as that source, one of the points it illiustrated was that on the average most women have healthier practices than men, men are more liable to certain STD's such as HIV where as women are more inclined to other STD's. You are not answering my question. You said the following in an earlier post: Gay marriage between 2 men is at least 2-10 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual couple. That specifically mentions gay marriage as being more likely to contract HIV. Why does the chance of contracting HIV go up when the two men are married as opposed to just dating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Originally posted by woodgie07Why does the chance of contracting HIV go up when the two men are married as opposed to just dating? I totally apologize for misrepresenting that statistic. I did not mean to say that the chance of contracting STD's along with HIV goes up even marriage. I meant for that to read that it's 2-10 times more likely for gay couples whether dating or married to contract an STD far as two men than a heterosexual couple. I fully not intended it to read like that as earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now