Gay Marriages

[dusken]

I have decided that anyone, gay or straight, who feels it is possible for homosexuality to be dependant on personal choice is of the dumbest humans on this planet. The fact that you are willing to make such a choice means you are attracted to the opposite gender. That make you homosexual before the choice, you shytty excuse for a human being.

[Anonymouse]

I have decided that anyone, gay or straight, who feels it is possible for homosexuality to be dependant on personal choice is of the dumbest humans on this planet. The fact that you are willing to make such a choice means you are attracted to the opposite gender. That make you homosexual before the choice, you shytty excuse for a human being.

Way to display your "intellect" by name calling other people because they disagree, so much for the "tolerant lefties". The fact that homosexuals are homosexuals one day, then change back to being straight or bisexual, or as Dan admitted he likes some women and watches some straight porn, is enough for me to suggest that this is some sort of psychological issue that people have control over.

[Deviance]

I have decided that anyone, gay or straight, who feels it is possible for homosexuality to be dependant on personal choice is of the dumbest humans on this planet. The fact that you are willing to make such a choice means you are attracted to the opposite gender. That make you homosexual before the choice, you shytty excuse for a human being.

Ok. That and many other arguments are all used for justification by homosexuals. Not saying it is true but they do use that argument. It goes something like what loseyourname said or something like this

"Ugh do I say being straight is wrong? Just because you like girls and I like guys is my choice and who are you to judge?"

[Deviance]

Way to display your "intellect" by name calling other people because they disagree, so much for the "tolerant lefties". The fact that homosexuals are homosexuals one day, then change back to being straight or bisexual, or as Dan admitted he likes some women and watches some straight porn, is enough for me to suggest that this is some sort of psychological issue that people have control over.

Like I said before, he has not developed yet. I just want you to see why there were "insults" reserved for this little chap. And you wonder why, after reading his comments, I insulted him?

[dusken]

Way to display your "intellect" by name calling other people because they disagree, so much for the "tolerant lefties". The fact that homosexuals are homosexuals one day, then change back to being straight or bisexual, or as Dan admitted he likes some women and watches some straight porn, is enough for me to suggest that this is some sort of psychological issue that people have control over.

I do not name call to display intellect; it is to display my feelings toward a particular individual or group. If you cannot understand that the you are an idiot. As stupid as any other nimrod that posts and thinks he is intelligent just because he is calm about how he is expressing himself. Hint to the nimrods: your disposition does not crown you an intellectual.

[Anonymouse]

I do not name call to display intellect; it is to display my feelings toward a particular individual or group. If you cannot understand that the you are an idiot. As stupid as any other nimrod that posts and thinks he is intelligent just because he is calm about how he is expressing himself. Hint to the nimrods: your disposition does not crown you an intellectual.

More pathetic nonsense by The dusken in us usual rant of displaying how "unique" he is. So it remains, homosexuality is not something people have no control over, like someone being black or disabled, so stop making stupid analogies. Since you nicely explained that it is okay to name call, I will thus call you "stupid". You are stupid, The Dusken.

[Deviance]

More pathetic nonsense by The dusken in us usual rant of displaying how "unique" he is. So it remains, homosexuality is not something people have no control over, like someone being black or disabled, so stop making stupid analogies. Since you nicely explained that it is okay to name call, I will thus call you "stupid". You are stupid, The Dusken.

Perhaps our topic should gear its focus more towards on Dusken's flaw or atleast a cure for it. Just to be more precise maybe it should be "DUNCEken?" I see his and the others lies are quite befitting themselves as usual.

[Deviance]

I do not name call to display intellect; it is to display my feelings toward a particular individual or group. If you cannot understand that the you are an idiot. As stupid as any other nimrod that posts and thinks he is intelligent just because he is calm about how he is expressing himself. Hint to the nimrods: your disposition does not crown you an intellectual.

Remember Dunceken, pretending to be smart and undermining others will not automatically make you "smart." If your false claims of others are what help you sleep at nights then be it. But that twaddle you just spouted out just makes you appear more practical.

[Crimson Glow]

Uhhh....yeah. Getting back to the discussion at hand....

Why murder is wrong is because it is incorrect, it doesn't work, and why socialism failed is because it is wrong, it doesn't work, why homosexuality is incorrect, is because it is wrong, it doesn't work. This is what I meant earlier that atheism and agnosticism promote this sort of relativism and if this paradigm is allowed to continue it has severe consequences.

Once again, racing mind. Bear with me. So then....what of heterosexuals who get married, but have absolutely NO plans to have children. Is their marriage/love immoral because it doesn't..."serve a purpose other than gratification and hedonism"? And are you saying everything must have a purpose to in order to be moral? Does that mean any personal hobbies or interests are immoral, because they are merely for self gratification? I guess I'll go to hell for trying to get better performance out of my cars in my free time.

Also, the very point that we're even debating this is a good arguement that morality may be relative. Perhaps there are a lot of things most people would agree on, but there are also a lot of grey areas. If the definite truth was that morality status is issued on clear cut right and wrong, how can we even be discussing a different view point? I'm not saying either side is wrong, but if the possibility that it's relative doesn't exist (which appears to be your stance), then this thread wouldn't exist. Ok, I'm just having a piss-poor time explaining this, which is unusual for me. Hope that made sense.

[Deviance]

Uhhh....yeah. Getting back to the discussion at hand....



Once again, racing mind. Bear with me. So then....what of heterosexuals who get married, but have absolutely NO plans to have children. Is their marriage/love immoral because it doesn't..."serve a purpose other than gratification and hedonism"? And are you saying everything must have a purpose to in order to be moral? Does that mean any personal hobbies or interests are immoral, because they are merely for self gratification? I guess I'll go to hell for trying to get better performance out of my cars in my free time.

Also, the very point that we're even debating this is a good arguement that morality may be relative. Perhaps there are a lot of things most people would agree on, but there are also a lot of grey areas. If the definite truth was that morality status is issued on clear cut right and wrong, how can we even be discussing a different view point? I'm not saying either side is wrong, but if the possibility that it's relative doesn't exist (which appears to be your stance), then this thread wouldn't exist. Ok, I'm just having a piss-poor time explaining this, which is unusual for me. Hope that made sense.

That is because they CHOSE not to have kids. The reason why it fails to work with homosexuals is because they cannot actually (naturally) produce a child. It is impossible for them.