- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We're "guilty?" Wow. Yea....we're guilty of knowledge Sir. We're guilty of knowin what in blue blazes we're talking about.
You are the member in here completely at a loss concerning this issue.
Sexual orientation is how someone feels about their sexuality.
Seuxal behavior is commiting a sexual act.
People can and do commit acts that they don't like. For example: Could you as a heterosexual have sex with another man? Yes you could. Would you as a heterosexual be repulsed by such an act? Yes you would be. Now apply that to male homosexuals having sex with a woman.
That sir explains the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. How one behaves does not necessarily mean that is what they are.
"Guilty" of appealing to "nature?" And "over and over" even? Wow. Imagine our shame...appealing to reality and nature. Tsk tsk.
Here is why your appeal to nature is false. As humans we are all considered mammals. As mammals we have a rather large family tree in the animal world. Indeed we are still considered as animals scientifically speaking. There are many mammals in the world that are not human and yet display homosexual tendancies. As such we can tell that such behavior is instinctual. Which shows that homosexuality is an instinct. Much like heterosexuality is displayed in the same way.
Some animals that are mammals that display homosexual tendencies are: (note that there are other animals in the animal kingdom that display homosexual tendancies also)
African Elephant
Brown Bear
Brown Rat
Buffalo
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cheetah
Common Dolphin
Common Marmoset
Common Raccoon
Dog (domestic)
European Bison
Prea
Wiki (as much as I hate using wiki it is a good source for a list..which can then be looked up on other sources..i'll leave that up to you)
I've sent a flock of data over you've yet to address, your assumption here is untrue, it isn't even close. You purposefully remove one of the genders from a child being raised, to pretend that has no affect is stratospherically wrong.
According to research homosexuals raise children just as good as heterosexuals. CC and jallman has provided links to this research in this very thread. Not surprising that you ignore it.
Your arguement that a childs self image being a bad reason to come to the conclusions is idiotic as ANY persons self image is a big factor in how well they will do in life. If they have a good self image then you can gauruntee that that person will lead a successful life. Kids do not get a good self image if they are living in homes that are not conducive to such.
For the part that was ignored the research conducted wasn't only about self image. It was also about how well they do in school academically.
Procreation is necessary though...for child rearing, homosexuality in fact anything homosexual whatsoever...is absolutely and clearly unnecessary. Not understanding that heterosexuality is the necessary sexual behavior and orientation to conceive children is profoudly wrong and shakes your entire theory to the ground. And your argument finally coned down here to 'benefits from the state', it appears that's all this argument is to the pro-gay movements and arguments. Marriage becomes merely a contract(absolute nonsense), the arguments coned down to what benefits are in it for us, how can we legitimize ourselves in the eyes of the 'state.'
Just because it is "unnecessary" does not mean that it doesn't exist. Or that it is bad.
Removing these wrong-headed and clearly confused arguments from yourself and jallman and others...setting them on the ground in neat order and on column...and piecemeal destroying each isn't misrepresentation. It's the utter destruction of the error prone points and arguments you and others are trying to make here. Pretending two women can raise a child, purposefully removing the father and faking like everything is just the same. What poppycock.
Going by the research two women can raise a child. As can two men. As well as heterosexuals. The research that YOU have shown is geared towards single parent homes and has nothing, nothing to do with how homosexual parents raised children. Another reason why your arguements are false. They are based on research that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Not only provided proof, reminded you of the blatant facts as well......and they clearly shoe you're wrong.
Again, the proof you showed had nothing to do with homosexuals raising children. It had to do with single parent homes. Which as anyone knows no child will do as good as those raised by two parents.
The number of colossal errors within your post certainly needs an excuse and a long day is as good as any other. I hope and pray I;ve been able to open your eyes a little more towards my side of the argument. Please read my links and explain your arguments if you can.
You are the one that made a colossal error. Several of them. From saying that if you procreate then you are not homosexual to saying that children are not raised in homosexual homes as good as heterosexual homes.
Last edited: