CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If Homosexuality was in nature as activists suggest, all species would have Homosexuals.
For all the activists who want to twist the facts to make Homosexuaity normal and natural, tell us all why tens of thousands of species of animals and birds have no homosexuals? Pro Gay activists tell us under biased studies that there are certain species such as Geese who have homosexuals in their ranks. They tell us that two male geese paired up together makes them Gay. They never show us any proof that these geese do not mate with other geese during mating season. They would have to live non stop around the clock with these Geese to proves so.
But this is what we have from Liberal activists. They live their lives trying to pass their agendas by twisting facts such as with the Global warming joke. Once their lies are shown, they change their name to climate change. This way it covers any weather condition whether it be extreme cold or extreme warm. How nice for them.
I'm waiting for your lame excuses why not all animal species have some homosexuals amongst their ranks.
What a shock, no answer. If man has a brain..... use it!
Biology teaches us what is natural and normal, while political correct activist deny it. The very thought of people calling what men do to each other as being natural and normal defies intellect. It is abnormal!!!!!!!!!! Our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman. You make yourself so juvenile to deny the simple truth.
Like I said, Liberals will twist any issue to make it ok whether it be late term abortions, gun control, environmental alarmists, homosexuality, you name it, they are radicle control fanatics.
That was an answer: I pointed out how flawed your logic is.
Biologists have shown us that homosexuality exists in nature. You and your political correctness deny it.
"The very thought of people calling what men do to each other as being natural and normal defies intellect. It is abnormal!!!!!!!!!"
Statistically yes, it is abnormal, but that does not make it UNNATURAL. You are conflating the two words despite the fact that they mean something else entirely.
" Our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman. You make yourself so juvenile to deny the simple truth."
Not as "juvenile" as when you deny the scientific evidence that homosexuality exists in nature and thus is natural.
"Like I said, Liberals will twist any issue to make it ok"
You must REALLY hate biologists.
"whether it be late term abortions"
Overwhelming majority of liberals oppose.
"gun control"
I am against.
"environmental alarmists"
We should all be alarmed at the damage we are doing to this planet, whether you believe in climate change or not.
" homosexuality"
The very field of Biology stands against you.
" they are radicle control fanatics."
You are the one who wants to use big government to force your opinions onto homosexuals and limit their freedoms. I want the government to back off, give them their Constitutional and civil rights, and let them do what they want with whatever consenting adult they want.
1. GenericName is absolutely right logically, as far as I can see.
2. FromWithin, you are a very biased conservative. In fact, you appear to me to be soooo biased that the conservative ideal is how you are in fact basing your logic. That is, as opposed to basing your logic on well, logic. I could say the same thing about getting too liberal and I'm a pretty liberal person as well.
There's a point on either end where it becomes ridiculous to the extent of retardedness, even when the only logical thing one of the two sides is saying about the other's extreme biased argument is that they're retarded.
Just saying this regardless of which bias you have, there has to be an extent of rationality or you are no longer a rational being. Instead you are now an angry South Park style cartoon character.
There is no point in denying the truth. You will either accept it, change it, deny it, or ignore it. But deny is the wrong option out of those four.
You are falling into the abyss of retardedness and illogicality. And you are falling very hard.
Here's your logical flaws ready?
Biology teaches us what is natural and normal, while political correct activist deny it.
They don't deny it. That's an exaggeration. They don't deny that biology teaches us what is natural and normal. They aren't saying homosexuality is normal, just that it is natural. And they are right, just ask a biologist. Illnesses, like depression and cancer are natural, but they aren't normal. If you ask the true/false question for homosexuality of: "Being a homosexual is natural but not normal", a biologist will agree with everything about that statement without exception. I'm not a biologist, but just ask one and you'll see.
It is abnormal!!!!!!
Less normal is not necessarily worse.
Our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman.
I agree. Now just say you think homosexuality is a mental illness and I'll say that not everyone who is homosexual has a mental illness and I'll say that being mentally ill isn't a bad thing. Our bodies are designed to have sex between a man and a woman so we can have babies. What of it? Nothing is wrong with man on man or woman on woman.
You make yourself so juvenile to deny the simple truth.
No he isn't.
Like I said, Liberals will twist any issue to make it ok whether it be late term abortions, gun control, environmental alarmists, homosexuality, you name it, they are radical control fanatics.
You misspelled "radical" but I fixed that for you when quoting you. By the way, you're the one who is twisting the argument in logic when you referred to natural as normal and implied that abnormal is necessarily bad. Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, and the large majority of people who hold Guinness World Records aren't normal, depending on how you consider normal. What of abnormal makes something/someone bad and which type of abnormal? And how then does that apply to homosexuals?
What a shock, AGAIN no answer to the question of the argument. If Homosexuality is natural as you say, why is it not in all the tens of thousands of species? It is were a part of nature, every species would have a small percentage of homosexuals. They have proved nothing on the few that they speak of.
You should reward your post to yourself, because it is your side that is falling into the abyss of ideological mind control. You are so lost in your political correctness, you chant the Liberal left's mantra with regards to common sense facts. You are so Liberal biased, it is laughable you can not see it.
" If Homosexuality is natural as you say, why is it not in all the tens of thousands of species"
That already has been answered, and it is nonsensical. The same could apply to all of the things I listed for you. If monogomy was natural, why isn't it in every species?
But you don't seem to understand that natural means occurring in nature, which means it doesn't need to be in every species.
"You should reward your post to yourself, because it is your side that is falling into the abyss of ideological mind control. "
Ironic.
" You are so lost in your political correctness, you chant the Liberal left's mantra with regards to common sense facts. You are so Liberal biased, it is laughable you can not see it."
Again, ironic. In this case, you are so politically correct (of the conservative fashion) that you are denying the obvious science right before your eyes.
I feel like you may just want an argument but he was just making a point about how idiotic the question was. If something is natural why don't all species have it. Some animal species have homosexuals not just humans. It would be appreciated if people did some research to topics before posting things like this.
1) I did not read the first guys comment if you are referring to a comment thread if you are referring to the person who made this debate I completely agree.
2) Okay that is a good point that I did not think about before submitting my comment. Some things, mental things, occur in many species and the usage of the word all was an exaggeration.
3) I very much agree with you on that part.
4) I was referring to both the author and previous commentator.
…and biology also teaches us that homosexual behavior is active among many species all across nature.
The very thought of people calling what men do to each other as being natural and normal defies intellect. It is abnormal!!!!!!!!!!
WHY? If humans only did things that they were 'designed' to do nothing would happen. We wouldn't wear clothes, or high five, and so on and so on.
And your exact same argument can be made for anyone who engages in anal sex, even men and women. Should they not be allowed to marry? Our bodies aren't 'designed' for bondage. Should we ban that? What about couples that are infertile? If bodies are designed so that men and women can have children together, why are you letting them get married?
The point that he was making that you did NOT respond to is that something doesn't have to exist among every single species for it to be "natural."
Do you see what you always do? You lie and exaggerate to make people think Conservatives want to ban something. Liberal Democrats are the only control freaks who like banning guns and fatty food, and anything else they don't like.
We don't want out marriage laws changed to fit every weird group that comes along. THAT'S IT!
"Lets see, we have never had Gay marriage so how can Conservatives ban Gay marriage?"
"We never had female voting rights, so how can we ban female voting rights?"
Nonsensical argument, even you must know that. Additionally, we have had same-sex marriage for almost a decade now, and Conservatives are still trying to ban them.
"Lets see, Liberals are suing states to force them to allow Gay marriage but somehow Conservatives are banning something that is not even legal."
They are Constitutional, and Conservatives want to ban them. Even in states where they ARE legal conservatives want to ban them. Why do you want big government to control peoples lives?
Killing unborn Babies has been declared constitutional by those on the Left who twist the Constitution. Quit spewing that same idiot rationale for Gays. As I said, Liberals will twist anything to get their agendas passed.
Oh my god. This argument is just idiotic. Just because something has never been allowed doesn't mean that it's not being restricted.
Our society has never allowed murder. I guess that means no one is banning murder.
Until recently, our society didn't allow women to vote. But since that had always been the case, I guess the law wasn't restricting a woman's right to vote?
And don't go off on the whole "you're using extreme examples" thing. I'm not. It's the exact same principle.
Side note: Saying "it's hard not to call a fool a fool" is calling the person a fool. Grow up.
Especially if it's followed by a nonsensical argument, you only lose credibility and make yourself look foolish. Act like an adult.
So your logic dictates that we can not say no to any weird group of people who want to change our marriage laws. EVERYTHING IS OK because some political correct fools say so? That's your argument? You are comparing allowing the woman's right to vote with two men getting married, going totally opposite to how we are designed? I could care less what two men do behind doors but that sure does not mean we twist our marriage laws to make them feel normal about themselves.
False. My logic dictates that we cannot say no to any group that wants to change your marriage laws to give them equal rights in a way that does not harm others. Polygamy, for example, would not be alright because it can be hurtful for those in the relationship due to jealousy and other negative factors (this has been studied.) A relationship of beastiality or pedophilia is not alright because only one member of the party can give consent.
The same is not true with homosexuality. A homosexual in love are effectively identical to a heterosexual couple in every respect except in regards to gender. For two homosexuals, getting married has no negative affect on either of them or on anyone else, except for the people who think it's icky, but that is not a good reason to say no.
Consenting children are not allowed to marry adults. Where's their equal rights? Oh i keep forgetting, only one weird group of people get special rights to change our marriage laws. Gays would never be jealous, LOLOLOLOLOLOL, WOW!
Consenting plastic bin bags are not allowed to marry adults. Where's their equal rights? Oh i keep forgetting, only one weird group of people get special rights to change our marriage laws. Gays would never be jealous, LOLOLOLOLOLOL, WOW!
The point is that the way laws are now, they ban same-sex couples from getting married. In the same breath, you argue that everyone should be free to buy or do whatever they want (buy guns) but that allowing groups to have equal rights is wrong.
In regards to food, that is about health reasons. Do you know the history of the food industry in this country?
What I said was "The point is that the way laws are now, they ban same-sex couples from getting married. In the same breath, you argue that everyone should be free to buy or do whatever they want (buy guns) but that allowing groups to have equal rights is wrong."
And your response is that there is nothing abnormal or unnatural about guns? First of all, that is absolutely false. The definition of "natural" is: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Guns do not appear in nature. They are man-made, the exact opposite of natural. Trying to argue otherwise just makes you look idiotic.
Second, even if you could prove that it wasn't natural (though people have already shown you that nature is replete with homosexual behavior), who cares? Should the government be used to enforce what's normal/natural? Are you perfectly normal in every way?
Why on EARTH do you keep trying to brainwash people that not giving Gays marriage rights is somehow Government enforcing what's normal or not. Marriage laws do not allow many groups. Adults marrying teens, Men having 20 wives, etc. etc.
Are you going to tell me that Government is enforcing what's normal to these people? NO, we have laws for reasons and our children deserve a mother and father to raise them. Why on earth do Gays even care about marriage rights other than to be sanctioned as normal. It is not! People today are living together and don't even want to get married. Civil laws could have answered all the right's issues that Gays have.
But Gays want all the Churches and society to sanction their lifestyle as normal. You might get Liberal judges to transform our marriage laws but it will never make Homosexuality normal. How about accepting our marriage laws as have polygamists. They are not so arrogant to force their will on all states.
Why on EARTH do you keep trying to brainwash people that not giving Gays marriage rights is somehow Government enforcing what's normal or not.
You are the one trying to make the case that it is not normal/natural - why would you consider that relevant if that is not what laws should be based on?
Marriage laws do not allow many groups. Adults marrying teens, Men having 20 wives, etc. etc.
The criteria should be knowing consent and limiting harm to others
Are you going to tell me that Government is enforcing what's normal to these people?
Yes, they are often enforcing what people think is, or should be, normal - rather than liberty.
we have laws for reasons and our children deserve a mother and father to raise them.
If a couple gets divorced or a parent dies - should the government take the children away and give them to a couple?
Should we have laws preventing parents of non-adult children from joining the military?
Should divorce be illegal?
Why on earth do Gays even care about marriage rights other than to be sanctioned as normal.
Do heterosexuals get married to be considered normal? I imagine gays people want to get married for the same reasons straight people get married.
Civil laws could have answered all the right's issues that Gays have.
Incorrect. Many benefits of marriage have not been available to unmarried couples. Many tax laws (estate taxes, joint tax filings, etc.), military spousal benefits, immigration rules, employment benefits for government workers, Social Security benefits, etc. etc. Even things like not being required to testify against your spouse.
But Gays want all the Churches and society to sanction their lifestyle as normal.
I imagine they would like that, but it is not what they require - they require (and deserve) equal treatment by their government.
You might get Liberal judges to transform our marriage laws
Yeh, and no one cares what you think of Conservatives and Christians who want our freedoms upheld and our faith not twisted to fit the Gay lifestyle as being ok in God's eyes.
It's amazing how other group's rights are not deserving of special marriage rights. Just your's.
Gay's should be fighting for any civil right's that they do not have today. No need to make a mockery of our marriage laws designed for a man and woman..
it's only a freedom/right if it applies even when the majority doesn't like it.
It's amazing how other group's rights are not deserving of special marriage rights. Just your's.
Off base on all counts. I'm not gay, and I support marriage for lots of groups including polygamists. Note: not special marriage rights - the same marriage rights. As I said previously: "The criteria should be knowing consent and limiting harm to others"
our faith not twisted
you are free to twist your own faith however you like - mormons can choose not to allow blacks, christians can bar women from leadership and not marry gays, etc. all you want in my opinion. I don't consider it moral, but I don't think it should illegal (see how that works).
No need to make a mockery of our marriage laws designed for a man and woman.
Correction, marriage laws were designed by and for a man - they adapted to allow greater rights/responsibilities for women through the same types of pressure as those in support of gay marriage today. (see coverture law)
There is no case to be made here. Homosexuality is not normal or natural. Biology teaches us this simple common sense fact. To deny so makes you probably Gay and someone trying to force us all to think as you would have us think.There are no Gay animals having sex with each other and refusing to have sex with the same sex. SPARE US!
Let me compare it to other traits that people have. Lets say someone has a slow metabolism and is obese yet still want to be a stewardess. We would all say that being obese is not a good thing for a stewardess due to weight concerns, etc.
Now she can be insecure about that fact and say I will sue and rant and rave until the Government and Airports stop infringing on my equal rights. Or she can except that she is not meant to be a stewardess. No one is judging her as no one is judging Gays. It's just a simple fact of life. Can you imagine if every fringe group of people started suing everyone for supposed equal rights?
Live with who you are and quit trying to force us all to believe that Obese is normal.
Now I know you are going to say the analogy is crazy, blah blah blah, but it is true.
Now many of you ask the same question when you say, why care if Gays get married?
There are reasons just as there are reasons why obese people should not have certain jobs. I don't know if you noticed, but the odds of two Gay men staying together for life from the time they get out of high school is very very small. Our divorce courts would be swollen beyond workable. What would stop two guys getting married for a time for the health insurance or other benefits from the other? Then they would get divorced.
I guess the bottom line is that our nation can not keep going in this direction where any fringe group can change our laws to fit their lifestyles. Our marriage laws and the family unit has stood our nation well since it's inception. Leave it alone because after your group, there will be others and in the end, most of our children will be all raised by a corrupt Government because the family unit will be no more.
What's next on the Gay agenda after every state is FORCED to allow Gay marriage? Are you going to force the state to give you foster kids to raise even if they don't want to for the good of the child? IT WILL NEVER END! Two men living together is not a normal natural environment we would want our children raised under. Sorry if that bothers you but that is the truth. It's not normal no matter how much you want it to be. The slippery slope will never stop until sane people say enough is enough.
Our divorce courts would be swollen beyond workable. What would stop two guys getting married for a time for the health insurance or other benefits from the other? Then they would get divorced.
Cartoon character says this. The reality can be found on wiki:
"As of 2011, for states with available data, the dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same-sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8%, or 1.1% on average across all listed jurisdictions per year, while 2% of married opposite-sex couples divorce annually."
What's next on the Gay agenda after every state is FORCED to allow Gay marriage? Are you going to force the state to give you foster kids to raise even if they don't want to for the good of the child? IT WILL NEVER END! Two men living together is not a normal natural environment we would want our children raised under. Sorry if that bothers you but that is the truth. It's not normal no matter how much you want it to be. The slippery slope will never stop until sane people say enough is enough.
Being a foster child is not a normal natural environment. 2 male parents would be a far better environment than 0 parents.
No, a mother and father should be the goal. Every child needs both role models. I believe we do our children a disservice if we send the message that Homosexuality is a normal lifestyle.
Again - I could care less what you think is normal/natural - only about the law.
Not occurring in nature is not enough for you to call for banning rockets, watches, clothes, radios, fake tits, etc. etc. etc.
Biology teaches us this simple common sense fact.
People have already shown you that there are examples of homosexuality in thousands of species.
"Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom" - ref
(Plus, again, who cares...)
There are no Gay animals having sex with each other and refusing to have sex with the same sex.
Except I already gave you references for exactly that here.
"They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates." - ref
"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual." - ref
Also, female Laysan Albatross "remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young" - ref
I don't know if you noticed, but the odds of two Gay men staying together for life from the time they get out of high school is very very small.
I don't know if you noticed, but the same is true for heterosexual couples.
Our divorce courts would be swollen beyond workable.
Silliness. Less than 5% of the population is LGBT, and only a subset of those will want to get married, and only a subset of those will get divorced. Is the court burden reason enough to make divorce illegal between heterosexual couples (the vast majority of couples), or, more appropos, to make heterosexual marriage illegal?
What would stop two guys getting married for a time for the health insurance or other benefits from the other?
What would prevent it for heterosexual couples (or couples pretending to be heterosexual)?
(Watch out for all those couples pretending to be gay for all those benefits they could get.... - laugh)
Our marriage laws and the family unit has stood our nation well since it's inception.
Our marriage laws have changed drastically since our founding. (see coverture, etc)
What's next on the Gay agenda
A government that doesn't care if you have a pp or a vjj...
Are you going to force the state to give you foster kids to raise even if they don't want to for the good of the child?
Is it "for the good of the child" to be "raised by a corrupt Government" in state run group homes rather than placed with a loving couple (even if that couple has the same naughty bits)?
If sex is only supposed to be between man and woman, then why is there a male G spot in the prostate? The only way to properly access the prostate as a sexual organ like this is through the anus. Yeah... so unnatural...
And from experience, usually the ones who are so vehemently against the gay community, like yourself, are closeted homosexuals. So the more you scream and rant saying gays aren't natural, the more I see you as a secret gay who's too afraid to admit it. :)
Our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman
Good point. So if sex is only normal to produce offspring, then what is your stance on barren women and sterile men?
What about geriatric couples who can no longer have children?
What about blowjobs? I mean, the mouth wasn't designed to give sexual pleasure, so surely that's wrong.
I suppose with your logic, we should never use any body part for any reason other than what it was designed for. Your teeth were designed for biting and chewing food, so you can't use them to untie a knot or anything. Your hair was designed to keep you warm, so I guess shaving and styling hair is abnormal too. I'm guessing you've never cut your hair then, right? This logic is fun!
Whether all species have homosexuals or not is irrelevant, the fact is many do, therefore it is not unnatural.
Why do you care either way? It doesn't affect you what consenting adults are doing in a private room. It's morons like you that spend more time thinking about gay sex than we do ourselves.
LOL, everything that goes contrary to Political correct mind control is "IRRELEVANT". It's not irrelevant when the facts destroy your argument. If Homosexuality were natural IT WOULD BE IN ALL SPECIES! Spew your left wing rhetoric to the low end voters who elect radical Liberals. It's people like you who are the morons who support a party that wants to take our guns and anything else they deem not good for us.
I care because of this radical Liberal group who want to force us ALL to bow to their will! How dare a few morons want to tell everyone that Homosexuality is natural and force states to change their marriage laws to accept it. WHAT ARROGANCE!
You do realize that these arrogant Liberals have sued Churches to hire Gay Sunday school teachers and to force their beliefs on another's faith.YOU ARROGANT FOOLS! This is why we care!
"LOL, everything that goes contrary to Political correct mind control is "IRRELEVANT". It's not irrelevant when the facts destroy your argument. If Homosexuality were natural IT WOULD BE IN ALL SPECIES! "
So according to your argument, monogamy isn't natural, and neither is heterosexuality, or single celled organisms, or ANYTHING."
"Spew your left wing rhetoric to the low end voters who elect radical Liberals. "
I didn't know Biologists were low end voters.
" It's people like you who are the morons who support a party that wants to take our guns and anything else they deem not good for us."
He is further to the right than you, ideologically. He is a Fascist.
" How dare a few morons want to tell everyone that Homosexuality is natural and force states to change their marriage laws to accept it. "
No, arrogance is you telling people who they can and can not marry and getting the government to force your opinions onto others.
"You do realize that these arrogant Liberals have sued Churches to hire Gay Sunday school teachers and to force their beliefs on another's faith.YOU ARROGANT FOOLS! This is why we care!"
That is completely irrelevant to the topic of same-sex marriage. Those lawsuits have failed, and will continue to fail. At least TRY to stay on topic.
It's not irrelevant when the facts destroy your argument.
If you don't read the argument how do you know what you have destroyed. What facts have you presented that dispute that gays can do what they want behind closed doors?
You clearly know nothing about me if you think I am politically correct, left-wing or liberal. I am a fascist and am far right. I hate ideas such as democracy and free speech, I hate political correctness and absolutely hate left-wing ideas about economics, for example taking money from the hard working middle class and giving it to the lazy unemployed.
The only thing is I believe that I have the right to shag whoever I want to as long as it is consensual and in private. Believing that does not make you left-wing. You clearly just describe anyone who isn't a dumb religious zealot as left-wing.
I have no idea which US political party you think I support but I am not even American. FYI I am British and support a right-wing party. Not all non-homophobics are on the right-wing. Perhaps just in America because you're politics are shit. If you're American it seems you're either a religious nut case or a total, lunatic leftie Bolshevist. You seem to lack diversity.
You are the arrogant one as you are the one audacious enough to tell people that they can't shag who they want to or can't marry who they want to. You have no right to care about any one else's sex life, it is none of your business. I really could not care whether a Sunday school teacher is gay or not. I personally want nothing to do with you're evil religion. Sometimes I wish all religious people where under the sea.
Also the fact does not destroy the argument as it is not necessary for every species to have homosexuals in order for it to be natural. Like how somebody has already said not all species have feathers but it's still natural for some to have them.
I don't think they are the arrogant ones if this is a statement all people who share your belief state. If it happens in nature it's natural that's how things work, just because someone has different preferences in their life doesn't make it wrong. It's like saying I like dogs so since you don't like dogs you are unnatural. Stupid and not affecting me. Until you give me a serious reason to have such a negative opinion towards homosexuals I will have to say that it isn't affecting me in my life and I see no way it is affecting yours.
This is why I ignore people. I never said I had a negative opinion of Gays, I said we fight against the Gay activists who sue churches to force them to hire Gay Sunday school teachers. We have false churches with Gay pastors who deny what the Bible says.
If it were not for Liberals and Gays who are trying to twist the Christian faith to teach that Homosexuality is not a sin, then we would have no problem with Gays. I've made this point very clear yet people like you STILL SPEW YOUR LIES TO TRY AND GET PEOPLE TO BELIEVE YOUR JUDGEMENT ON CONSERVATIVES AND THOSE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE BIBLE.
Your dog analogy is mindless. Dogs don't try and deny biology and the norms of nature.
It's actually not really. Conventional religions may be irrational but its perfectly natural for humans to try and describe things they can't or don't understand. They just insert entities into their descriptions which helps with the soundness of the rationale explanation. Actually, a lot religions do give rational explanations (e.g. demon possession being translated from psychological explanations, the devil, if real as conceived, and transferred into a living entity, would likely give rise to hysteric behavior- unless its objective were to remain inconspicuous).
Our explanations are derived from the fact that we THINK we understand certain phenomenon. We had an explanation for the earth being in the center of the universe, for example.
Explaining things is apart of what humans do; humans are natural; therefore the act of human explanation is, in fact, natural.
You are arguing with a dictionary. That's is absurd and wrong. Give me something that is unnatural.
Our explanations are derived from the fact that we THINK we understand certain phenomenon. We had an explanation for the earth being in the center of the universe, for example.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM NATURAL. Humans are the only animal that makes buildings. Buildings are unnatural. Humans are the only animal that makes clothes. Clothes are unnatural. Humans are the only animal with electronics. Electronics are unnatural. Humans are the only animal with a system to explain how things work. A system to explain how things work is unnatural.
Explaining things is apart of what humans do;
THE DEFINITION OF UNNATURAL.
humans are natural;
If everything humans do is natural, what is your definition of unnatural?
therefore the act of human explanation is, in fact, natural.
Dictionary says you are wrong, therefore no matter what logic you use the definition of unnatural doesn't change.
It is illogical nonetheless to say that natural phenomenon produces unnaturalness in the most technical sense.
Buildings are unnatural.
Buildings are indeed a natural phenomenon as they are produced by natural entities such as chimps, bees, etc. (NOTE: You're also wrong when you say humans are the only creatures that makes buildings. Moreover, natural elements themselves forms structures that fit within the criterion of a building.
Building- a structure with a roof and walls that is used as a place for living, working, doing activities, storing things, etc.)
Clothes are unnatural.
Clothing - a covering.
I will try to be charitable by assuming you have no fundamental understanding of zoology: there is a creature called a snail, some of the specimens within this species wears the shell (or 'covers' itself) of another species - this also fits inside the criterion of "clothing".
THE DEFINITION OF UNNATURAL.
Unnatural is a bit ambiguous. So I'll follow this question up with:
What is your definition of unnatural?
Natural - having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.
(NOTE: there was exactly 15 definitions of natural which shows how nuanced the term is.)
Unnatural - Not in accordance with what usually occurs in nature.
Again, humans are apart of nature, given so it is inevitable that anything that is produced by humans is natural, technically.
Now if you wish to explicate naturalness by invoking what is common, then you have every right to do so as i previously stated the term natural is ambiguous.
The only way your point could be valid in any way is if somehow take humans out of the equation as being natural phenomenon produced in a natural way- which, the only way to do that is to invoke religion into this topic which, for the sake of cumbersome argument, i would rather refrain from doing.
Dictionary says you are wrong, therefore no matter what logic you use the definition of unnatural doesn't change.
I would suggest that you concoct a studying plan so you can become more proliferate in the subject of logic that way you can properly engage in semantic/terminological discourse.
You have completely wasted your time. Give me one thing that is unnatural. Do it. You have completely missed the point and you have stretched the language as far as it can be done. You have one challenge. Name something unnatural.
Your definition of unnatural is not used by anyone but you. And, according to your definition, religion is unnatural since it is only seen by one species. That's pretty rare.
You're are completely incapable of interpreting logic coherently.
I believe i have waited my time talking to a brick wall. I call you a brick wall for making comments such as "And, according to your definition, religion is unnatural since it is only seen by one species." And, "Give me one thing that is unnatural. Do it."
Anything that exists inside and produced by the like of nature is NATURAL, the only example of something unnatural that I can give you something that is fantastical. Tis why i suggested that one must use unnaturalness in a certain context.
Changing the definition of natural does not make you logical.
Your definition of unnatural is useless, that's why no one uses it. I am not incapable of logic, you are. You used circular reasoning to redefine what natural is.
No one but you considers what humans create to be natural. There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. You eliminated one of those. Why?
Name the context for unnatural or STFU. Give me anything unnatural or STFU.
Changing the definition of natural does not make you logical.
There are 33 definitions of natural, you only choose to go by one, which makes you an incorrigible irrational nonconformist.
Your definition of unnatural is useless, that's why no one uses it.
I don't care who chooses not to use the dictionaries definition of natural, for as long as I am using a dictionaries definition of natural then I am justified in using it, simple.
No one but you considers what humans create to be natural.
Logicians do, know why? because the logical progression of naturalism entails that anything that a human does must be considered natural.
There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. You eliminated one of those. Why?
By your context of unnaturalness humans must be doing something supernatural; how can a natural being give rise to actions unnatural? Unless of course that very being itself wasn't natural (i.e. supernatural). Now i don't mind going into the realm of super-naturalism, but the subject you are attempting to refute is logically sound and irrefutable.
Name the context for unnatural or STFU. Give me anything unnatural or STFU.
Very mature debating skills, Cartman. But as you insist, here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:
If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).
There are 33 definitions of natural, you only choose to go by one, which makes you an incorrigible irrational nonconformist.
False. I am using the one that is correct for this debate. According to your definition the debate premise is false and there is no debate. According to my definition the debate premise has a chance to be true and is open for debate. Therefore, you are using the wrong definition.
I don't care who chooses not to use the dictionaries definition of natural, for as long as I am using a dictionaries definition of natural then I am justified in using it, simple.
Oh, you are using the wrong context. We are trying to determine if religion exists in nature, not if it is a natural thing for humans to do. In the context of this debate religion is unnatural like the debate creator suggests homosexuality is. Religion is not in nature because not all species have religion ... the premise of the debate. Oh, and how come I am not justified in using my definition of natural if it is in the dictionary as well. You are being contradictory.
Logicians do, know why? because the logical progression of naturalism entails that anything that a human does must be considered natural.
Don't speak for logicians. They would say you are wrong.
By your context of unnaturalness humans must be doing something supernatural
I am glad that you have proven you are too dumb to be allowed in this debate. There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option. Clearly you have misrepresented what I have said.
how can a natural being give rise to actions unnatural?
By definition.
Unless of course that very being itself wasn't natural (i.e. supernatural).
Not natural might be considered unnatural if you weren't an idiot and looked at the definition I told you about.
Now i don't mind going into the realm of super-naturalism, but the subject you are attempting to refute is logically sound and irrefutable.
Wow, I just showed there is no logic in it whatsoever, and that it was completely refutable. Congratulations.
Very mature debating skills, Cartman.
Oh yes, I will leave the maturity to you.
But as you insist, here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:
If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).
That isn't a thing. You are using an alternate definition of unnatural that doesn't fit with this debate. It isn't your fault though. The debate is structured poorly. I don't know why you felt that I was the worst offender. Look at this debate. In the context of this debate religion is unnatural. The rest of us are trying to determine what things humans do that is unnatural. This debate is using the definition I provided, not what you provided.
False. I am using the one that is correct for this debate. According to your definition the debate premise is false and there is no debate. According to my definition the debate premise has a chance to be true and is open for debate. Therefore, you are using the wrong definition.
Homosexuality is natural, for it is produced by nature.... Humans are produced by nature, therefore anything that humans do is natural.
We are trying to determine if religion exists in nature, not if it is a natural thing for humans to do. In the context of this debate religion is unnatural like the debate creator suggests homosexuality is. Religion is not in nature because not all species have religion ... the premise of the debate.
First, a scientific claim is not always validated by the observation of another species.
Secondly, all we need is one species to practice religion for it to exist in nature as humans are natural.
Thirdly, the way the debate is contextualized in using naturalness does not coincide with its attempted meaning of natural which is why it is completely wrong. The debate is expressing nature as in something that occurs without conscious decision and I believe you are to; my point is the fact that this is conceptualized and practiced entails that it must be natural, even if one person was doing it, for logical reasons. Moreover, I could go even further how religion is conjured up no matter where you go in the world which hints towards a psycho-genetic component that may give rise to a system in which explains things we don't know.
Oh, and how come I am not justified in using my definition of natural if it is in the dictionary as well. You are being contradictory.
I never said you weren't justified in using your definition, you are the one who said I wasn't justified in using one of the definitions, you basically said my definition of natural doesn't work. I used a universal definition of natural- anything that is caused by nature; humans are cause by nature; therefore, anything that a human does is natural.
Don't speak for logicians. They would say you are wrong.
Even though my use of natural is logically sound...
Tell me, where am i wrong in saying: humans are produced by nature; therefore humans are natural; therefore anything that this natural entity (humans) does is natural; humans explain thing; therefore the act of explanation is natural.
I am glad that you have proven you are too dumb to be allowed in this debate. There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option. Clearly you have misrepresented what I have said.
Ah, i see you are incompetent in understanding how nuanced grammatical logic and lexical semantics are. You gave three options two of which can be interchangeable (supernatural and unnatural).
Secondly, this statement itself is logically unsound: "There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option." By this logic there are six choices, as you said "the other three". Lmao, you are actually misrepresenting yourself.
Not natural might be considered unnatural if you weren't an idiot and looked at the definition I told you about.
The word unnatural is self-described as not natural, obviously. My point is you cannot deduce that something natural can give rise to unnatural, unless, of course, we are talking about a fantasy realm.
Wow, I just showed there is no logic in it whatsoever, and that it was completely refutable. Congratulations.
You have not shown anything but complete ignorance in the field of logic.
That isn't a thing. You are using an alternate definition of unnatural that doesn't fit with this debate.
You only asked me to provide a context in which i would use the word unnatural. That is all i did; and my example was logically sound.
Perhaps I will make a debate about humans doing the 'unnatural'.
Homosexuality is natural, for it is produced by nature.... Humans are produced by nature, therefore anything that humans do is natural.
That does not address how my definition fits better with the debate premise.
First, a scientific claim is not always validated by the observation of another species.
Not my fault. That is the premise of the debate made by the person I am arguing against.
Secondly, all we need is one species to practice religion for it to exist in nature as humans are natural.
Except if we use my definition which you have already agreed is valid, since you think yours is valid.
Thirdly, the way the debate is contextualized in using naturalness does not coincide with its attempted meaning of natural which is why it is completely wrong. The debate is expressing nature as in something that occurs without conscious decision and I believe you are to; my point is the fact that this is conceptualized and practiced entails that it must be natural, even if one person was doing it, for logical reasons. Moreover, I could go even further how religion is conjured up no matter where you go in the world which hints towards a psycho-genetic component that may give rise to a system in which explains things we don't know.
This debate is using a definition of natural found in the dictionary. You can't complain that the debate is using a definition you don't like. Your logic presupposes that the definition that we are using does not exist. Your logic is not valid in this context.
I never said you weren't justified in using your definition, you are the one who said I wasn't justified in using one of the definitions, you basically said my definition of natural doesn't work. I used a universal definition of natural- anything that is caused by nature; humans are cause by nature; therefore, anything that a human does is natural.
You said that your definition is the only one that matters, which invalidates the one I was using. Therefore, you said I was not justified in using it. I was always saying that according to my definition I am right. Your logic doesn't make me wrong. Your universal definition of nature does not fit into the context of this debate and can't be used. Now I am saying it.
Ah, i see you are incompetent in understanding how nuanced grammatical logic and lexical semantics are. You gave three options two of which can be interchangeable (supernatural and unnatural).
They can't, they are different no matter how hard you want to change that fact. And, according to my logic they are not interchangeable, so your argument is worthless anyway.
Secondly, this statement itself is logically unsound: "There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option." By this logic there are six choices, as you said "the other three". Lmao, you are actually misrepresenting yourself.
You misquoted me. I did not say "the other three". I said "one of the 3", "one of the other of the 3", and "the third option". This one is all on you.
The word unnatural is self-described as not natural, obviously. My point is you cannot deduce that something natural can give rise to unnatural, unless, of course, we are talking about a fantasy realm.
The definition being used in this debate states that anything created by humans is unnatural. Therefore, humans who exist in nature can create something unnatural. Nothing in nature create something supernatural.
You only asked me to provide a context in which i would use the word unnatural. That is all i did; and my example was logically sound.
Read again. I asked at least twice in this debate for something that is unnatural.
Perhaps I will make a debate about humans doing the 'unnatural'.
You misquoted me. I did not say "the other three". I said "one of the 3", "one of the other of the 3", and "the third option". This one is all on you.
You just flat out lied.... I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. If you edited your comment then that shows your dishonesty. I am entirely disappointed in you Cartman.
This act of dishonesty was enough for me to dismiss this bickering entirely as it shows your immaturity and your likelihood of trolling me right now. I wish you the best.
You just flat out lied.... I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. If you edited your comment then that shows your dishonesty. I am entirely disappointed in you Cartman.
This is great. I copy and pasted from your quote of me to show how you were wrong. I told you that you misquoted me. What did you do? You did no reading of the prior arguments. Don't go back and read my "edited" argument. Go back and read the stuff that you copied and pasted into your own argument. I still can't edit that.
This act of dishonesty was enough for me to dismiss this bickering entirely as it shows your immaturity and your likelihood of trolling me right now. I wish you the best.
So, I am not sure what to do here. You were clearly wrong, and all I did was point out that you made a mistake. I didn't call you a liar, which would be accurate. I didn't claim the act of dishonesty made you immature. Yet, you who made the mistake, were given the opportunity to move on, called me dishonest, and called me immature for being correct. I am willing to let this get back on track if you want. I am too immature to abandon this debate.
So, like I said, the word unnatural becomes essentially useless. We can ignore the fact that you are using it in a way that is far from normal...or, one might say, natural? (Ha).
They tell us that two male geese paired up together makes them Gay. They never show us any proof that these geese do not mate with other geese during mating season. They would have to live non stop around the clock with these Geese to proves so.
First problem with your argument is that you have failed to bring up something that discredits the homosexual agenda. You agree that homosexual acts occur in nature. What you have failed to show is how the possibility that a gay man may want to have sex with a woman eventually means that he shouldn't be allowed to receive the tax benefits he pays for just because he wants to receive those benefits with a man. Second problem is that you are discrediting monogamy with your argument as well. Since you feel marriage can exist without monogamy in geese, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is permanent in geese. The third problem with your argument is that you keep moving the goalposts. Something is found in nature unless it is also found in animals, then it isn't natural unless you find an animal that always exhibits those traits. What will you ask for after a full gay goose is presented?
Never mind the fact that some species are exclusively homosexual in their entirety, and in fact reproduce via homosexual mating.
Of course, this is due to the fact that most hermaphroditic species technically only have one gender, making heterosexuality an impossibility- but nevertheless, I think we can all agree that homosexuality is well documented in nature, and hermaphroditic species really underscore that point.
I agree entirely but I'm sure his essential point (erroneous as it may be) is in regards to species that are biologically/anatomically designed for reproduction through heterosexual mating.
He supports the notion that homosexuality (for heterosexually designed species) is some sort of disorder- this could have scientific explanations for why this notion could be a possibility given homosexuals abnormal neurological makeup.
He supports the notion that homosexuality (for heterosexually designed species) is some sort of disorder- this could have scientific explanations for why this notion could be a possibility given homosexuals abnormal neurological makeup.
Beg pardon? Every credible psychological body has explicitly repudiated everything you just implied. Homosexuality does not correspond with an "abnormal neurological makeup" and to even suggest that this notion could possibly be scientifically correct is ignorant at best.
Well it wouldn't be an ignorant notion given that psychology authorities have not yet ruled it out. I'm sure homosexuality may have genetic components that would give rise to this abnormal trait but to imply that my neurological notion is 100% untrue isn't scientific at all (and even more so since it hasn't been ruled out as a possibility).
Furthermore, attraction (whether it's to a sex or a painting), is a psychological function by necessity. Notwithstanding, to say homosexuality doesn't correspond with ones psyche is a tad bit absurd.
Obviously human sexuality is a psychologically induced phenomenon. My comments were directed at your quasi-support for the stance that homosexuality is a disorder, which every single credible psychological association has ruled out for quiet some time now.
I never stated homosexuality was a disorder, it's not a disorder given that it doesn't fit the criterion of one, obviously. I stated it was an abnormal neurological/psychological make-up given that it gives rise to behaviors that are not what your anatomy is technically designed for- and from an evolutionary standpoint it hasn't been shown yet to be advantageous to a species (unless we're speaking of some sort of hermaphroditic species), so I wouldn't call it necessarily predisposed. Just as in the case of blindness, plenty of people are born blind but does that make it something that biologically normal (note: when i speak of normality i am speaking in terms of what should be, not something of which is common)?
Does typing require abnormal neurological/psychological make-up since it is not what you were designed for?
Straw man; humans were designed to be able to communicate in creative ways, typing is a form of communication therefore one can argue that [typing] is just a form of advanced communication.
Homosexual behavior has been show to have advanatages for animal species and humans.
The evidence for this isn't very substantial. This is really just a mere postulation.
"biologically normal" - pretty sure no one is claiming that it literally happens in more than 50% of the population
I never stated that it did. This actually makes no sense.
Who determines what "should be" - you? evolution?
There is a certain criterion which must be met for something to be considered normal. What determines this criterion is the evidence of how things work and function. When one is born with one eye we can conclude that something must have went wrong during the embryos development process. How can we deduce this? Well, the human anatomy is designed to function best with two eyes as apposed to one- and having two eyes is advantageous for ones survival.
One would think evolution but homosexuality continues to persist which is why it is sometimes postulated to be advantageous, problem is plenty of prevalent disadvantageous dysfunctions/psychological abnormalities persist despite not being advantageous.
So to answer your question of who (or rather what) determines what "should be": rationality and empirical evidence.
Straw man; humans were designed to be able to communicate in creative ways, typing is a form of communication therefore one can argue that [typing] is just a form of advanced communication.
Humans were designed to be sexual creatures. Homosexuality is a form of sexuality, therefore one can argue that homosexuality is just a form of human sexuality. :P
I have no idea why you are mincing words on this. Your arguments regarding the evolutionary unnaturalness and neurological abnormality of homosexuality are effectively the same as the argument that homosexuality is a disorder, and they are just as fallible.
Firstly, the entirety of your argument hinges upon the absence of proof regarding the evolutionary function of homosexuality rather than being premised upon evidence demonstrating its dysfunction. You are effectively asserting assumption absent proof and misrepresenting it as established fact.
Secondly, the evidence you claim does not exist actually does exist. My computer crashed and I have lost the direct links at the moment, but there are plenty of theories with varying degrees of supporting evidence (e.g. kin selection theory). Notably, all of these possible explanations provide more evidence than does yours.
Animals do have homosexuality. A prime example of this would be two swans in Boston previously, known as Romeo and Juliet, who turned out to be a same sex pair.
LOL, read the argument and try saying something that might actually prove something. Do two males who happen to be friends ever share an apartment? How about two male geese being partners from lack of other female geese who have no partners? No of course not, that would not push the Gay argument. Spare us all the lunacy of trying to prove that up is down.
"LOL, read the argument and try saying something that might actually prove something. "
You haven't said anything that proves your argument at any point. You deny any evidence that contradicts your incorrect beliefs and you fail to address any criticism of your arguments."
" How about two male geese being partners from lack of other female geese who have no partners?"
Nice job proving that you didn't bother to actually read the evidence provided. They had female geese available to them with no partners.
"No of course not, that would not push the Gay argument. Spare us all the lunacy of trying to prove that up is down."
Do you like answering questions for other people? Quit doing it or you will be banned from my arguments. If I address you, then you answer. By answering questions for others you are saying they are too stupid to answer. I want to hear from those who might not be as Left wing indoctrinated as yourself.
"By answering questions for others you are saying they are too stupid to answer. "
Why do you presume to speak for me? I do not "answer questions for others", I comment on things you have said. This IS a debate forum, you know, which means that is kind of what people do.
" I want to hear from those who might not be as Left wing indoctrinated as yourself."
You do not want to hear from anyone that disagrees with you.
This debate is pathetic. How can we ever really know how animals think? Nature is best left to work without human interference, as it has been for countless years. I can't imagine how many instances of homosexuality there has most likely been over the course of time between animals.
There are no homosexual animals. I'm waiting to see any animal on any nature program proving to us that they refuse to have sex with the opposite sex and showing us them having sex with the same sex. THERE ARE NONE BECAUSE THEY SHOW US NONE. It is just one more example of lies from the left to push their agendas.
I normally respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but you're honestly just a homophobic idiot who won't listen to anyone else. You say the liberals have an agenda about advancing gay rights and everything? You're just a hateful person who has a personal vendetta against gays. I will never take anything you say seriously from now on because you're actually a complete joke.
Another radical Liberal heard from.... THANK YOU for letting me know who you are and PLEASE DO ignore me because so many other arrogant stalkers on this site follow my posts around like insane people.
Ahhhh, calling anyone whose faith or beliefs do not agree with Gay marriage is a HOMOPHOBE! You are the judgmental fanatical Liberals who have no open mindedness for diversity of thought or beliefs. No you are the arrogant radicals who will FORCE their will on all Americans and force them to believe that two men having sex is normal and that they should change our marriage laws. WOWOWOOWOWOWOWOWOW!
All sane Americans have the right to disagree with you but you fools will call them homophobes for not agreeing.
Another radical Liberal heard from.... THANK YOU for letting me know who you are and PLEASE DO ignore me because so many other arrogant stalkers on this site follow my posts around like insane people.
You don't understand the point of this website, do you?
Ahhhh, calling anyone whose faith or beliefs do not agree with Gay marriage is a HOMOPHOBE!
A term used far too often and in nonsensical contexts.
You are the judgmental fanatical Liberals who have no open mindedness for diversity of thought or beliefs
Again, you are the one who insults people with differing opinions and censors them in your debates.
No you are the arrogant radicals who will FORCE their will on all Americans and
That would be you, trying to force your opinions onto homosexuals.
and force them to believe that two men having sex is normal
Not a single person is trying to force anyone to believe anything here. Just leave them alone and let them have their rights, that's it.
and that they should change our marriage laws.
They should, if they want to stay in line with the Constitution.
Hahahaha according to merriam webster, homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
You are literally against gays having the same rights that you do because you think what they do in the privacy of their bedroom isn't "normal". I didn't realize your "moral compass" was the one to dictate all of America's laws.
I forgot to say. I have absolutely NO RESPECT for control freaks who think like you! But I would never try to force a Gay business owner to cater my Christian event. I'm not a thinned skinned control freak. I don't care what you think of me or my faith, I would never force others to be a part of it.
That's the funny part is that a gay business owner probably wouldn't have any issues with catering a christian event. If I am paid for a service I provide, it doesn't mean I have to agree with the customer at all. If I owned a restaurant and you came in, I'd gladly serve you because I'd rather have your money than not!
Not to mention that there are 2 types of christian- sane ones, who would go to a business owned by a gay with no issue whatsoever, and radically conservative lunatics who would probably boycott a gay business without stepping foot inside. I'm guessing you're the latter, which means a gay business would never get the chance to cater your events because you would never let them.
"they refuse to have sex with the opposite sex and showing us them having sex with the same sex"
You are looking for proof of intention in animals. We cannot communicate with animals so that is the impossible. You cannot show an animal chooses to make mating calls rather than do so out of instinct either.
If you just want to watch two gay animals doing it, you will find plenty of that on youtube.
Why do you keep missing the point? Animals like dogs or others will hump anything that moves. This does not make them gay. If we saw some video of an ape having sex with another ape of the same sex, that does not mean he does not have sex with the opposite sex as well.
There is no proof of any animal that is solely Gay, having sex with the same sex and never mating with the opposite sex. It is just more propaganda from the Left and Gay activists to make you believe homosexuality is normal and natural which of course it is not.
Oh man, now I know why you are confused. Because of bigots who are even worse than you, homosexuals have had to prove that their homosexuality should be legal, not just marriage. These bigots try to claim that since any homosexual contact is unnatural, it shouldn't even be allowed. The "found in nature" argument was only ever trying to show that animals will jump the same sex. Saying it is natural was to avoid jail time. So, the evidence is provided for that scenario, and you can't argue that.
The marriage issue is not about whether homosexuals exist in nature. Gays aren't demanding marriage rights because they are natural. Marriage is unnatural, that argument wouldn't make sense. Gays want marriage because they are losing out on the benefits of choosing a life partner. I hope that clears everything up.
Poor babiessssssss. Do you know how many benefits I lose for being a home owner, or for being middle class and making too much money according to Democrats when it comes to subsidizing their voting blocks. We all lose benefits based on many things and life goes on. Marriage is no right for every fringe group.
Do you know how many benefits I lose for being a home owner, or for being middle class and making too much money according to Democrats when it comes to subsidizing their voting blocks.
How many?
Marriage is no right for every fringe group.
Marriage is a civil right, as the Supreme Court has ruled. Can you provide any argument as to why the 5th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals?
Well thank you all for not answering the question of why Homosexuality is not in the tens of thousands of different species. You have admitted to me that Homosexuality is not natural to species and if it is ever proven to be in any species, it is a disorder.
As Cartman said religion is not natural as it is only present in one species. Homosexuality is present in 1,500 species but religion is only one. So is it really that gay who are unnatural or the mentally retarded and insane morons who have an imaginary white-bearded friend who sits in the sky controlling everything?
"Well thank you all for not answering the question of why Homosexuality is not in the tens of thousands of different species. You have admitted to me that Homosexuality is not natural to species and if it is ever proven to be in any species, it is a disorder"
It is kinda sad that you have to lie to yourself in order to maintain your beliefs.
I'm not surprised you don't get it. If it were true that there are Gays in nature as with people, tell me why out of all the tens of thousands of species, in the vast majority of those species there NO HOMOSEXUALS! If you can't grasp that, wow!
There would always be a few Homosexuals in every species no matter if it were a choice, or disorder, or who knows what.
Just because something is natural or is in nature does not mean it has to exist everywhere. Is having 8 legs natural for a spider? Yes. Is having blue blood natural? For Cephalopods yes. Is having wings on a butterfly natural? Yes.
Then is homosexuality natural? Yes.
What we define as "nature" or "natural" is merely referring to what we consider to be the norm or socially acceptable. This is not a biological question. It is a social one. It has to do with how we perceive these individuals in our society.
Or to put in in another way, how are human beings considered natural at all? We are practically hairless, bipedal, make our own tools and possess a theory of mind. Where else can you find these characteristics in the animal kingdom? We are unique, and should not be defined or judged with respect to animals. To do so is derogatory and is against the rights of a human being.
What activists are merely saying is that homosexuality has been observed in a few species and thus is not confined to humans. No conclusions can be drawn other than this.
Well, when one of the fools who try to say up is down tells us all how the body is designed to work, maybe I might just listen. Read up on our body parts and our sexual parts, and tell me how two Gay men are natural. Until then, it is laughable.
I'm not really up to date on the scientific research of homosexuality of other species besides humans, but I can tell you the main difference. A human can ask existential questions; who am I, how did I come to be, what is my purpose. Animals cannot do this, and therefore don't really feel the need to express themselves outside of their primal instincts, which is mostly to reproduce. To put an understanding of the human concept of love is shortsighted and should be open to interpretation always. How I see it, if you love somebody, then love them.
Love scientifically can probably be connected to some body chemistry that occurs in the brain, so if that is so, then who am I to judge by how someones brain works. I think the best thing is to be tolerable and helpful to your fellow man, don't judge them, and belittle them. Because if you do that, then what are you? The leader on moral righteousness? God?
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume that you are a follower of the Christian religion, I see that most religious people are staunch homophobes. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." I'm not religious, but I believe that verse speaks truths on the fair treatment of humans, and if you do follow the bible as your moral handbook, then practice what you preach.
What you just posted is a perfect example of how people on the Left or people who support the Gay agendas, have NO CLUE what the Christian faith is all about.
I totally agree on what you said about how we should treat others, how we should love and how we should not judge them.
Now you are either trying to deliberately mislead people so they will judge, belittle or not be tolerable to Christians, or you are truly naive and ignorant to the Christian faith.
True Christians do love people and do not judge people. What we do is stand up for God's words and when Gay activists and Liberals try to sue the Church to force Gay Sunday school teachers(even though our faith says it is a perversion) we take a stand. Can you imagine Christian parents wanting their kids taught the Bible by open Gay Sunday school teachers who do not agree with the Bible. We want true Christians in places of leadership in our Churches who believe what the New testament Bible teaches.
For the millionth time..... THIS IS WHAT WE FIGHT AGAINST WITH THE GAY AGENDAS. We don't want our marriage laws transformed to any fringe group that comes long because this is the slippery slope where one step at a time America's Christian heritage is being transformed. We have every right to fight for what we believe is best for America and it's children, as do you and what you think America should be. I always laugh at people like you who think Christians should be silent, stay in Church and never voice our opinions on issues. That makes it easier for those on the Left to transform America(hence the lie of separation of Church and state). We don't judge Gays, we don't hate Gays, you are a liar or very ignorant.
Now what I see is a hypocrite who refuses to see that he goes against everything he just preached, love, tolerance for our fellow man, etc. I bet you vote for Democrats who support late term abortions on demand. Before you say the typical lie of how Democrats do not support this, during the Partial birth abortion debates in Congress, it was shown that the majority of late term abortions are done on healthy Babies and by healthy mothers. Try some tolerance to our most defenseless and just MAYBE Christians could have an ounce of respect for your so called compassion.
So who are you? The leader on moral righteousness? God? The hypocrisy on the Left's so called compassion and tolerance for others is such a load of garbage.
Start practicing what you preach. Stop judging Christians for standing up for what their faith teaches. We love ALL people, even our most defenseless Babies. Start taking a stand for the right's of life for our Babies as you constantly do for Gay marriage. Your priorities are sickening. In your world the life of a Baby is not as important as Gay marriage.
I actually never said I was in support of the "gay" agenda, nor against. I'm not even liberal, I'm independent. I also said that I'm not religious at all, but I was raised in a Christian environment. I never -purposely- said anything that would mislead a person to treat Christians unfairly, "True Christians," have already made an opposition based on their actions. If you call pointing out; the wars, the lynching, the slavery, the cruel treatment, and the fear mongering -misleading-, then I think you are ignoring human history.
America isn't a Christian country, there is a reason why there is a whole clause about separation of church and state.
I never said that Christians should be silent, I think they should have an equal voice in government as the gays, atheists, straights, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, whites, blacks, Asians, American-Natives, basically every significant people that make up America.
I do practice what I preach, as the Christian faith is not what I preach. As well, try and stay away from strawmanning others, you do not know whether I value a human life over a social issue.
I rest my point. You would preach to Christians about how you think we are not tolerant or loving towards Gays while you could care less about even late term abortions on demand.
Abortion is the one issue that shows who people are on the inside. Do they practice what they preach, or do they pick and choose who gets their tolerance. Christians care for all people.
Babies can't speak out for their right's to life as Gays CONSTANTLY do for their so called marriage rights. Babies can't preach to you and judge you for denying them their right to life by what you support when you elect pro abortion politicians. They can't tell you that you are an intolerant person for electing those who would keep the killing legal even for late term abortions on demand. Babies can't explain how you excuse killing them for sake of money as you think these Babies might be a burden on our social programs. Or maybe supporting abortions to prevent more minorities from being born. That is a form of racism in my book. Abortions excused by twisting the Constitution's privacy clause.
So the next time you want to judge Christians for what you call being intolerant to any group of people(which we are not) then look at yourself before pointing fingers.
The Constitution says Government shall make no law establishing religion and will pass no law that prohibits the free exercise of religious expression. It says nothing about separation of Church and state! Allowing communities the freedom to choose a school prayer or not DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION. As at football games, it's a simple prayer of love, tolerance, forgiveness and safety for those listening. No child is forced to pray.
Tell me why Congress opens every day with a prayer if it were establishing a religion to do so.
What you just posted is a perfect example of how people on the Left or people who support the Gay agendas, have NO CLUE what the Christian faith is all about.
I totally agree on what you said about how we should treat others, how we should love and how we should not judge them.
Now you are either trying to deliberately mislead people so they will judge, belittle or not be tolerable to Christians, or you are truly naive and ignorant to the Christian faith.
True Christians do love people and do not judge people. What we do is stand up for God's words and when Gay activists and Liberals try to sue the Church to force Gay Sunday school teachers(even though our faith says it is a perversion) we take a stand. Can you imagine Christian parents wanting their kids taught the Bible by open Gay Sunday school teachers who do not agree with the Bible. We want true Christians in places of leadership in our Churches who believe what the New testament Bible teaches.
For the millionth time..... THIS IS WHAT WE FIGHT AGAINST WITH THE GAY AGENDAS. We don't want our marriage laws transformed to any fringe group that comes long because this is the slippery slope where one step at a time America's Christian heritage is being transformed. We have every right to fight for what we believe is best for America and it's children, as do you and what you think America should be. I always laugh at people like you who think Christians should be silent, stay in Church and never voice our opinions on issues. That makes it easier for those on the Left to transform America(hence the lie of separation of Church and state). We don't judge Gays, we don't hate Gays, you are a liar or very ignorant.
Now what I see is a hypocrite who refuses to see that he goes against everything he just preached, love, tolerance for our fellow man, etc. I bet you vote for Democrats who support late term abortions on demand. Before you say the typical lie of how Democrats do not support this, during the Partial birth abortion debates in Congress, it was shown that the majority of late term abortions are done on healthy Babies and by healthy mothers. Try some tolerance to our most defenseless and just MAYBE Christians could have an ounce of respect for your so called compassion.
So who are you? The leader on moral righteousness? God? The hypocrisy on the Left's so called compassion and tolerance for others is such a load of garbage.
Start practicing what you preach. Stop judging Christians for standing up for what their faith teaches. We love ALL people, even our most defenseless Babies. Start taking a stand for the right's of life for our Babies as you constantly do for Gay marriage. Your priorities are sickening. In your world the life of a Baby is not as important as Gay marriage.
I rest my point. You would preach to Christians about how you think we are not tolerant or loving towards Gays while you could care less about even late term abortions on demand.
Abortion is the one issue that shows who people are on the inside. Do they practice what they preach, or do they pick and choose who gets their tolerance. Christians care for all people.
Babies can't speak out for their right's to life as Gays CONSTANTLY do for their so called marriage rights. Babies can't preach to you and judge you for denying them their right to life by what you support when you elect pro abortion politicians. They can't tell you that you are an intolerant person for electing those who would keep the killing legal even for late term abortions on demand. Babies can't explain how you excuse killing them for sake of money as you think these Babies might be a burden on our social programs. Or maybe supporting abortions to prevent more minorities from being born. That is a form of racism in my book. Abortions excused by twisting the Constitution's privacy clause.
So the next time you want to judge Christians for what you call being intolerant to any group of people(which we are not) then look at yourself before pointing fingers.
The Constitution says Government shall make no law establishing religion and will pass no law that prohibits the free exercise of religious expression. It says nothing about separation of Church and state! Allowing communities the freedom to choose a school prayer or not DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION. As at football games, it's a simple prayer of love, tolerance, forgiveness and safety for those listening. No child is forced to pray.
Tell me why Congress opens every day with a prayer if it were establishing a religion to do so.
I think elephant males prefer homosexual sex. Really, you don't have a point here, some guys like other guys some gals like other gals. Are you trying to say you are smarter or know more about the world than homosexuals? That they just don't understand their own bodies as well as you understand them?
You just don't get it do you. Who doesn't know there are thousands of people with weird fetishes, unnatural desires for animals, multiple wives, men wanting to marry consenting teens, etc.
We have men who can not stay true to one woman and they have constant affairs. Does this make it normal or natural? NO! Does it mean we should change our marriage laws because of some fringe group with the power of the Liberal media? NO!
It matters not why some men think they are women. Some men just like to dress like women. There are all kinds of weird people but we have laws that support the obvious normal relationships which are best for our children. Laws that are good for society. Laws that supersede any small group of people who would force their agendas on us all.
You do realize that many Pedophiles also believe they are born that way. Does this make it normal or natural? I'm not comparing pedophiles to Gays, I'm making the simple point that just because any group of people think their lifestyles should be sanctioned as normal, does mean we should just slide down that slippery slope.
Who doesn't know there are thousands of people with weird fetishes, unnatural desires for animals, multiple wives, men wanting to marry consenting teens, etc.
A few of those are absurd comparisons. "Weird fetishes" are not illegal, bestiality is rape, and statutory rape is, again, rape. Comparing rape to a relationship between two consenting adults makes no sense.
We have men who can not stay true to one woman and they have constant affairs. Does this make it normal or natural? NO!
Polyamory is actually quite natural, though it definitely isn't normal in our society.
Does it mean we should change our marriage laws because of some fringe group with the power of the Liberal media? NO!
You are correct. We should only change our marriage laws if violations of the constitution are in question.
It matters not why some men think they are women. Some men just like to dress like women. There are all kinds of weird people but we have laws that support the obvious normal relationships which are best for our children.
Outlawing the real because it isn't the ideal is ridiculous, and it deprives orphans without homes very real, loving parents.
Laws that supersede any small group of people who would force their agendas on us all.
That would be you in this situation, not them.
You do realize that many Pedophiles also believe they are born that way.
Recent evidence suggests that they very well might have been. That does not mean that pedophilia, which involves rape when acted upon, should be legalized. Same-sex relationships involve consenting adults, and no harm occurs. Why do you insist on such groundless comparisons?
This persona does this for two reasons. Firstly, there are no reasonable comparisons that actually support its point. Second, appearing as a reasonable, rational individual is counter to its agenda.
I understand where you're coming from, I used to be Christian myself, but pedophiles like sociopaths ARE born that way. We still need to deal with them because they could harm others. The difference is gay people are consented adults who (may) love each other. And fetishes? Well if you get consent with another adult, feel free to try all kinds of weird shit!
Yes Gays may love each other, Humans may love animals, adults could love consenting teens, men could love 20 wives, but what does that have to do with changing our marriage laws to accommodate these fringe groups?
We have norms that are good for society, and when you allow one group to change our laws, you have opened the flood gates.
Yes Gays may love each other, Humans may love animals, adults could love consenting teens, men could love 20 wives, but what does that have to do with changing our marriage laws to accommodate these fringe groups?
What compelling interest does the state have in denying same-sex couples their rights? The state has a compelling interest in preventing bestiality, pedophilia (or simply statutory rape), and currently has a systemic barrier to polygamy (though one that can, and in my opinion should be gotten rid of), but none of those have anything to do with the argument in favor of legal marriage for same-sex couples.
You are using the slippery slope logical fallacy, and in doing so, refusing to provide an argument specifically as to why we should not make marriage an institution simply between two consenting adults. Where is the harm in that?
I thought I was clear, adults can have consent, animals and children can't. If two adults want to get married than so be it. I'm sure this isn't about "Not opening a window." As much as its about your own personal religious beliefs.
"Ya know we shouldn't really give food stamps to poor people, cause the next thing you know they'll want free tvs and smartphones, we should just really not go into that area. M'kay?"
What you just described has happened. Our welfare roles keep growing because as we make it easier and more pleasant with free cell phones free healthcare, housing subsidies, etc. MORE PEOPLE GET ON WELFARE.
They should stand in food bank lines for their free food and just watch how fast they find jobs. If you don't get this then please ignore me. I can not debate that kind of ignorance.
I used to be like you, a Conservative Christian. It turns out, Fromwithin that you're completely full of shit. Even though you pull shit out of your ass to maintain your world view, I haven't called you ignorant! So who the fuck are you to call me ignorant?
Anyone who has not seen the slippery slope in full bloom these past 50 years is either a child, an ignorant person, or a liar. It matters not which it is.
Anyone who does not understand human nature is a waste of time to debate. When Government makes it easier to not work.... MORE PEOPLE WILL NOT WORK!
Democrats are complete fools but it is not because they are that stupid. They know what they are doing by being corrupt politicians and buying votes. What makes them fools is that they either don't care about destroying America's culture or they actually believe that growing Government dependence works. Either way they are total fools!
You're entitled to your opinions, but don't call me ignorant for knowing that your ideology is completely full of shit. Trust me, I live around to many conservative people like you, I get it. I get the gun culture and I get Rush Limbaugh, but don't call me ignorant for not believing that shit. Its simply not true, I've heard Republicans make that argument forever.
Don't listen to what Conservative's say, just look at life and see it happening. You have been indoctrinated to believe right is wrong and wrong is right. Conservatives are the only people making any sense to what is happening in our culture. To deny it makes you the problem.
People who want the anything goes, no fault sexual revolution are only thinking of themselves. They don't care for our children's future or the good of our nation. It is purely self love. They must demonize Conservatives or Christians who make them feel guilty over the self love that does so much harm to our children and debt.
We don't want to make moral laws as does the Left with all their political correctness. We want to lift up the good in moral life styles and the harm from the opposite. I'm not talking about Homosexuality, I'm talking about all lifestyles that create fatherless children, welfare dependence, etc.
Have you seen the commercials showing the results of smoking and the people speaking through a hole in their neck? That kind of message is powerful and works! Conservatives and Christians once again want to have society put out messages of the harm of promiscuous sex, teen sex, drinking, drugs, etc. etc.
It used to work and would today. Personal responsibility keeps people off the welfare roles and for Democrats to refuse to speak of responsibility should tell any intelligent person their motives....the almighty low income voting block. Millions of people addicted to Government dependence and voting for the politicians that give them the free subsidies.
You've heard the argument, TRY LISTENING JUST ONCE!
I have read there are some dolphins that are Gay. I am sure there are other animal species that are Gay. These animals aren't ashamed to be Gay just as any human shouldn't be ashamed to be Gay.
What a shock, totally ignore the argument and spew your pro Gay marriage garbage. Try addressing the argument and explaining why this so called natural occurence in nature is not happening in every species?
Have you ever seen two male dolpins having sex? Do you know if these supposed Gay dolphins never have sex with the opposite sex? No, you spew garbage as always and expect low end voters to believe the garbage.
Have you ever seen any TV footage of two male Dolhins having sex? And please tell me how anyone could possibly know if those same Dolpins never have sex with the opposite sex.
For all the activists who want to twist the facts to make Homosexuaity normal and natural, tell us all why tens of thousands of species of animals and birds have no homosexuals?
1) Birds do not have penises and vagina. Most bird species have a cloaca which is also used to excrete urine and feces.
Both genders have the same external genitalia. There is no difference for heterosexual and homosexual sex. They literally "bump uglies" for a couple of seconds hundreds of times a day in order to transfer genetic material.
There are also some birds that are asexual and reproduce as such.
2) You also mentioned animals which includes even more species and reproductive systems. Even arthropods can be classified as animals.
It is generally not a good idea to use science as an authority if you do not actually understand the science.
Pro Gay activists tell us under biased studies that there are certain species such as Geese who have homosexuals in their ranks. They tell us that two male geese paired up together makes them Gay. They never show us any proof that these geese do not mate with other geese during mating season. They would have to live non stop around the clock with these Geese to proves so.
I am not even sure what study you are talking about. Let's assume everything you have said is true. Does this mean that human bisexuals are natural because there are bisexual Geese?
But this is what we have from Liberal activists. They live their lives trying to pass their agendas by twisting facts such as with the Global warming joke. Once their lies are shown, they change their name to climate change. This way it covers any weather condition whether it be extreme cold or extreme warm. How nice for them.
I'm waiting for your lame excuses why not all animal species have some homosexuals amongst their ranks.
The study of climatology has been around long before media sensationalism of "global cooling" and "global warming". It seems like you have been brainwashed by the media as well.