samuelblayden
Newcstle Knights 2006
just chicks marrying each other is ok
Incorrect. There exists natural phenomenon of homosexuality in the animal world.ice_wind said:its not natural...women and men were made for each other...to fuck and hav babies, u cant just change the natural cycle...
You have ignored my response to that point and have misquoted the argument. That is not the argument.Riqtay said:"Eventually, it will be accepted", is the argument that you put foreward PwarYuex. Well by this token, some day marriages with animals will some day be accepted. The mere fact of a collective group of people indulging in something doesn't make it correct.
This premise in the argument relies on the proposition that God exists. Ergo you must prove the existence of God to continue with this argument.Riqtay said:God created Man and Woman for a reason.
You fail to state what is unnatural about being gay.Riqtay said:The reason is to satiate our sexual desires in the natural way and also to reproduce.
1. That will obviously not happen.Riqtay said:Imagine if everyone in the world became homosexual as everyone should "have the right to equal rights". The human species would cease to exist after a couple of generations.
That is an argument from tradition, a logical fallacy. It has no rational basis.Philomena_86 said:the fact is it totally disrespects the sanctity of marriage
Holy? What makes it holy?Philomena_86 said:which is a holy precious union between man and wife.
I think the word you are looking for is "rational", rather than "bitter".Philomena_86 said:Besides from my strong religious views which most of you bitter people will knock,
Your argument:Philomena_86 said:I believe that they should never be accepted legally, they know what they do isnt in the 'normal' lines of society therefore no they should never have any legal recognition for the things they do.
Keep discussion of whether God exists to it's relevant thread please.Riqtay said:Ok lets assume for a second that God didn't create you, rather it was electrical impulses. My question is, then who created those electrical impulses?
Logic tells us that a creation (ie you) requires a creator. Your parents created you, but then who created the first humans?
I note that you have ignored my counter-arguments, and that this point has nothing to do with gay people, but I will respond anyway.Riqtay said:I would like to ask you this. Are you for or against sex with an animal? If you are for or against, tell me what your reason is.
What do you mean by "unnatural"?Riqtay said:Is it unnatural or not?
I don't think so -- I'm sure there are a number of instances where the shared benefit of technology has been enjoyed in nature.Xayma said:The problem being is human shared use of technology destroys the natural selection process.
Jeez you're an idiot. You've just brought up the same religiously-based argument that is time and time again shown to be a stupid card to play. Your definition of 'normal' only comes from you being a spoilt little brat, showered with too much money from mummy and daddy, told that what they tell you is right because they're ultra-conservative Catholics.Philomena_86 said:the fact is it totally disrespects the sanctity of marriage which is a holy precious union between man and wife. Besides from my strong religious views which most of you bitter people will knock, I believe that they should never be accepted legally, they know what they do isnt in the 'normal' lines of society therefore no they should never have any legal recognition for the things they do.
I find it interesting that some people are born queer, yet God is against homosexuality. Obviously He takes pride in destroying His own work.Riqtay said:For me to counter argue against your arguments, I would have to refer back to the existence of God which I believe in very strongly, through logic. Howver this would inevitably lead to a cyclical discussion of God and his existance, which obviously you don't want to get into.
I believe that God exists due to logic and religious dogma. I believe that most things require answering, yet if we are always pursuing scientific proof rather than just logic alone, then our lives will become a constant quest for proof which not even all of the scientists can provide.
Hunger is a feeling that you feel when you are hungry. You can feel it, hear it (when your stomach rumbles) and more or less taste it. Yet can you see it? Ofcourse you can't see it but its there. The same deal goes for the existence of God.
By all means, engage in it -- just not in this thread. I will gladly dismantle your arguments about god, but not here.Riqtay said:For me to counter argue against your arguments, I would have to refer back to the existence of God which I believe in very strongly, through logic. Howver this would inevitably lead to a cyclical discussion of God and his existance, which obviously you don't want to get into.
Pretty much all arguments for god are a priori since there is no material evidence. But they are still bad arguments.Riqtay said:I believe that God exists due to logic and religious dogma. I believe that most things require answering, yet if we are always pursuing scientific proof rather than just logic alone, then our lives will become a constant quest for proof which not even all of the scientists can provide.
The analogy is flawed. You can measure hunger, through certain psychological states in your brain and the physical need for food through nutrient and chemical levels in your blood, etc.Riqtay said:Hunger is a feeling that you feel when you are hungry. You can feel it, hear it (when your stomach rumbles) and more or less taste it. Yet can you see it? Ofcourse you can't see it but its there. The same deal goes for the existence of God.
I bet it would be possible to test hunger levels -- maybe certain brain activity. Not to mention that hunger is linked to how full your stomach is.MoonlightSonata said:The analogy is flawed. You can measure hunger, through certain psychological states in your brain and the physical need for food through nutrient and chemical levels in your blood, etc.
I don't understand how you arrived at the above conclusion - why on earth would someone choose to be part of a group that is at times viewed by bigots as unnatural, deviant and repulsive in order to fit in?Philomena_86 said:I dont believe people are born queer at all I think they come to believe 'they are gay' cose thats where they believe they fit in society and they must be gay.
er, what the fuck?Philomena_86 said:I dont believe people are born queer at all I think they come to believe 'they are gay' cose thats where they believe they fit in society and they must be gay.
rofl.Philomena_86 said:I dont believe people are born queer at all I think they come to believe 'they are gay' cose thats where they believe they fit in society and they must be gay. Pwaryuex I recieve no money from my parents I did not go to a private school, I have a job and pay for everything so dont judge me on what you think I am.
But a homosexual is not going to "fuck and have babies" just because s/he can't marry their homosexual s/o.ice_wind said:its not natural...women and men were made for each other...to fuck and hav babies, u cant just change the natural cycle...
Is it or is it not unnatural to starve yourself during daylight hours for a month?Riqtay said:I would like to ask you this. Are you for or against sex with an animal? If you are for or against, tell me what your reason is.
Is it unnatural or not?