• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Gay baby

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • No

    Votes: 42 54.5%
  • Total voters
    77
Ethereal said:
The whole point of evolution is to perpetuate the species. Pockets of homosexuality are not a detriment to the perpetuation of the human species, in fact, some can argue that it is beneficial.
Click to expand...

I've never been too sure of this statement. If that was the whole purpose then why have so many species died out through the millions of years? And I'm not talking about just the ones that died because of some massive meteor.

I think a more apt description of evolution's purpose is change.

In any case yes being gay can be beneficial to the species. It's been noted that many homosexuals are more caring emotionally of the young than heterosexuals.
 
MrVicchio said:
Conversely, so is yours....

You have no proof gay is not a choice.

Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice.
Click to expand...

Choice or not, there is no reason that form of sexual pleasure should be any more or less acceptable than heterosexuality. I could care less if it's genetic or folks make the choice. I can tell you that I certainly didn't choose to be heterosexual, and that the idea of hooking up with a man does not appeal to me in the least. However, if you believe it's a choice, then I assume you at least have the desire to experiment with another man sexually, right? I mean, if it's a choice along the lines of choosing cake or pie for dessert, then why only choose cake? Surely you'd have the desire for a lil' pie every now and then, yes?

That whole argument that it's a choice followed by you believing it's disgusting makes ZERO sense. If it's a choice, then there's some desire behind it.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual at all, and until the homophobes who constantly scream about how unnatural and wrong it is can produce scientific and psychiatric studies to back up their blathering, it remains normal - and yes, natural, too.
 
MrVicchio said:
Conversely, so is yours....

You have no proof gay is not a choice.

Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice.
Click to expand...

Allowing him to do that is a choice, wanting him to do that is not a choice.
 
Mr. Vicchio wins this argument with this line:

"Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice."

Ponder on that, liberals. :doh
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've never been too sure of this statement. If that was the whole purpose then why have so many species died out through the millions of years? And I'm not talking about just the ones that died because of some massive meteor.
^^^^^They died out because they were unable to adapt to change & evolve....
For whatever reason.....;)
I think a more apt description of evolution's purpose is change.
^^^^^ I could not disagree more....
Evoloution describes the ability to adapt to change that is beyond a being's control, with regard to outside forces, ie climate, food, predition.....
In any case yes being gay can be beneficial to the species. It's been noted that many homosexuals are more caring emotionally of the young than heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

^^^^^ I don't see how being gay adds anything beneficial to a species....
Your example, (if true) really does not add anything significant....

The desire for personal change only occurs when discomfort (whether real or peceived) is experienced.....
Whether that change is enough to survive & evolve....Well.....
Evoloution is neither the beginning or end, it is the process....;)
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Why is it "liberal" to believe that being gay isn't a choice? :confused:
Click to expand...

I gonna go out on a limb here & say most Conservatives think it is a choice....;)
You can resist the abyss of debauchery if you put your mind to it.....:mrgreen:
 
Partisan said:
I gonna go out on a limb here & say most Conservatives think it is a choice....;)
You can resist the abyss of debauchery if you put your mind to it.....:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I didn't say "engaging in homosexual activities", I said "being gay".
 
I'm wondering if say a Hitler, Stalin or a Manson gene could be found is it okay to abort?
 
K-1 said:
Mr. Vicchio wins this argument with this line:

"Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice."

Ponder on that, liberals. :doh
Click to expand...

So no real argument? Just a bunch of unsubstantiated claim and then some crooning and cawing about how the internet was won?

I don't know why I even considered the idea this would turn out differently.

Hey, K, why don't you at least try to form a coherent argument and speak to the research that was posted? Or would that be too much of an inconvenience to your agenda of shrill caterwauling without any fact to back it up?
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I didn't say "engaging in homosexual activities", I said "being gay".
Click to expand...

Where did I say, "Engaging in homo activities"?......:confused:
I did say, "Abyss of debauchery", though....;)
 
K-1 said:
Mr. Vicchio wins this argument with this line:

"Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice."

Ponder on that, liberals. :doh
Click to expand...

Actually, Mr. V. used a mix analogy.

For it to be correct he needed to either had gone (I’ll even generally use his words):

“Using ones left hand is a choice. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice."

OR

“Being left handed is a birth issue. Being attracted to the thought of another male pushing a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a birth issue."

You see, Mr. V. took a definitive birth issue (being naturally left or right handed) and compared it to a choice issue (allowing one self to engage in anal sex) as if that was somehow proof. Its not

One can be “left handed” and yet CHOOSE to use his right hand his whole life, or vise versa. Some can even choose to use both hands. The CHOICE is which hand he wants to try to use, however the birth issue makes it far, far more likely that he’ll use the left hand because it will feel more natural and normal for him.

Similarly…

Yes, it’s a persons CHOICE rather they receive anal sex or not (here’s a likely shock for you…there are gay men who don’t like to have what Mr. V. described happen to them). Just as that person could choose to put their blood engorged tube of flesh into the vagina, or they could choose to put it in both places. Or hell, he could choose to put that blood engorged tube of flesh into a rectum of a FEMALE. The CHOICE is if he does the action or not and with who, but the BIRTH ISSUE could quite possibly be if he’s sexually attracted to the notion of doing that act or not with a member of the same sex.

Mr. V., in between wrongfully suggesting its Captain’s duty to prove something he hasn’t asserted definitively while not the other posters duty to prove something he asserted definitively, was incorrect in comparing two acts that were no equivalent scenarios to try and prove that the actual over arching fact was different, which is a bit of a fallacy.
 
Partisan said:
Where did I say, "Engaging in homo activities"?......:confused:
I did say, "Abyss of debauchery", though....;)
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you are saying that conservatives have to actively resist their homosexual desires. They would be attracted to people of the same gender if they didn't resist these urges.

Is that an accurate depiction of what you are saying?

If so, I gues I am a liberal, because i don't even get the urge to put a penis in my mouth. Like ever.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Ahh, so you are saying that conservatives have to actively resist their homosexual desires. They would be attracted to people of the same gender if they didn't resist these urges.

Is that an accurate depiction of what you are saying?

If so, I gues I am a liberal, because i don't even get the urge to put a penis in my mouth. Like ever.
Click to expand...

No, that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying......
Nice spin though....:)
Simply put, Liberals see being gay as acceptable behavior, Conservatives do not, regardless of it's 'cause'....;)
 
Partisan said:
No, that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying......
Nice spin though....:)
Simply put, Liberals see being gay as acceptable behavior, Conservatives do not, regardless of it's 'cause'....;)
Click to expand...

Being gay is not a behavior. :confused:


Also, your argument means that because something is a choice it must be an unacceptable behavior? :confused::confused:


Ad what does being tolerant of being gay have to do with politics?!?!??!
 
Partisan said:
No, that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying......
Nice spin though....:)
Simply put, Liberals see being gay as acceptable behavior, Conservatives do not, regardless of it's 'cause'....;)
Click to expand...
I think you need to be clearer: Social conservatives are not okay with homosexuality.
 
Partisan said:
No, that is not an accurate description of what I'm saying......
Nice spin though....:)
Simply put, Liberals see being gay as acceptable behavior, Conservatives do not, regardless of it's 'cause'....;)
Click to expand...

Umm....

There are three conservatives actively participating in this thread in myself, Ego, and Jall off the top of my head that do not see it was "unacceptable" behavoir and I dare say don't believe its entirely based on choice.

So that whole definitive definition you have there seems to be incorrect.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, Mr. V. used a mix analogy.

For it to be correct he needed to either had gone (I’ll even generally use his words):

“Using ones left hand is a choice. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice."

OR

“Being left handed is a birth issue. Being attracted to the thought of another male pushing a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a birth issue."

You see, Mr. V. took a definitive birth issue (being naturally left or right handed) and compared it to a choice issue (allowing one self to engage in anal sex) as if that was somehow proof. Its not

One can be “left handed” and yet CHOOSE to use his right hand his whole life, or vise versa. Some can even choose to use both hands. The CHOICE is which hand he wants to try to use, however the birth issue makes it far, far more likely that he’ll use the left hand because it will feel more natural and normal for him.

Similarly…

Yes, it’s a persons CHOICE rather they receive anal sex or not (here’s a likely shock for you…there are gay men who don’t like to have what Mr. V. described happen to them). Just as that person could choose to put their blood engorged tube of flesh into the vagina, or they could choose to put it in both places. Or hell, he could choose to put that blood engorged tube of flesh into a rectum of a FEMALE. The CHOICE is if he does the action or not and with who, but the BIRTH ISSUE could quite possibly be if he’s sexually attracted to the notion of doing that act or not with a member of the same sex.

Mr. V., in between wrongfully suggesting its Captain’s duty to prove something he hasn’t asserted definitively while not the other posters duty to prove something he asserted definitively, was incorrect in comparing two acts that were no equivalent scenarios to try and prove that the actual over arching fact was different, which is a bit of a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Also, it's a false analogy entirely because it presupposes that all homosexual activity is confined to anal sex. He completely glosses over the fact that homosexual behavior in women doesn't involve a penis at all.

It was an idiotic attempt at trying to pass off mindless vulgarity as a legitimate argument.
 
Tucker Case said:
Being gay is not a behavior. :confused:
Sure it is.....

Also, your argument means that because something is a choice it must be an unacceptable behavior? :confused::confused:
When it goes against the laws of nature, yes....

Ad what does being tolerant of being gay have to do with politics?!?!??!
Click to expand...

Politicians shape social change......;)
 
Partisan said:
Sure it is.....

When it goes against the laws of nature, yes....

Politicians shape social change......;)
Click to expand...
Jallman already showed your buddy k-1 that appeal to Nature is a fallacy. Maybe you should go back a page and read up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom