Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
re: The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]
LOL, ok, well lets address this first shall we.
How many straight men eat pie, and how many straight women suck? Prolly a lot, right? What does it mean, or precisely, how germane to THE point was your rebuttal? Answer. Not very!
The liberal members here have attempted to refute Zyphlins OP, by way of a moral conversation, so too have some conservatives, however, I think I agree with Matchlight, in that, no one has any cornering of the market on what is and is not moral. One would first need to define it, and well that's a bit tricky; some of the best minds in history have tried, and we've come to a somewhat vague understanding of what exactly that is, albeit only on a personal and individual level. I won't even try.
To me, homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics. It really has nothing to do with marriage, or rights, or anything tangible. Rather, homosexuality doesn't look right. It looks like something went wrong, whether biological, or sociological. I don't see how homosexual-sexuality helps in any way, and my understanding of evolutionary science tells me that, species survive because of their ability to adapt, and reproduce. What does homosexuality bring to the table? Serious question, whether you believe it to be biological or sociological, what does it bring, what is the upside of it all from a species standpoint?
Now, the OP says there's an agenda. Yes, I agree. But it's not coordinated in some grand conspiracy, but rather targeted in very specific areas of influence, where the power of thought and speech are regulated NOT by law, but by manipulation. We call that, the media!
Tim-
Just thought I might put this here...
A report, titled "Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States," which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives.
Kinda hard to make the whole thing about sex when there are more straight people doing it than there even are gay persons. Don't let the facts get in your way.
LOL, ok, well lets address this first shall we.
How many straight men eat pie, and how many straight women suck? Prolly a lot, right? What does it mean, or precisely, how germane to THE point was your rebuttal? Answer. Not very!
The liberal members here have attempted to refute Zyphlins OP, by way of a moral conversation, so too have some conservatives, however, I think I agree with Matchlight, in that, no one has any cornering of the market on what is and is not moral. One would first need to define it, and well that's a bit tricky; some of the best minds in history have tried, and we've come to a somewhat vague understanding of what exactly that is, albeit only on a personal and individual level. I won't even try.
To me, homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics. It really has nothing to do with marriage, or rights, or anything tangible. Rather, homosexuality doesn't look right. It looks like something went wrong, whether biological, or sociological. I don't see how homosexual-sexuality helps in any way, and my understanding of evolutionary science tells me that, species survive because of their ability to adapt, and reproduce. What does homosexuality bring to the table? Serious question, whether you believe it to be biological or sociological, what does it bring, what is the upside of it all from a species standpoint?
Now, the OP says there's an agenda. Yes, I agree. But it's not coordinated in some grand conspiracy, but rather targeted in very specific areas of influence, where the power of thought and speech are regulated NOT by law, but by manipulation. We call that, the media!
Tim-