Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain McMahon

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

Recommended Posts

Lets put this to rest. How do you know that homosexuality is simply un-natural.

Lets do a simple experiment. For this we will require three islands.

On one island we put a group of 5000 males and 5000 females.

On the second island we put a group of 10,000 gay males.

On the third island we put a group of 10,000 gay females.

We turn up the clock and let 100 years go by. Is anyone going to argue with the conclusion that two out of three of those islands are going to end up with ZERO population?

Conclusion, homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle choice (hey, after all, one can chose to sleep with sheep or goats or whatever be...), it is a dead end evolutionary and biologically. As I believe in freedom of ones choices, I do not care if one man (or woman) chooses to spend their lives with another man (or a woman). However, I do NOT want to hear about their relationships and sexuality on the news, newspapers, parades, ect...

Sexuality is what you do, NOT who you are. If you feel the need to define yourself as gay (which says ZERO about who you are, what you do ect..) then at the very least you are an individual that has no concept of oneself and therefore feels the need to link the whole being of his existence to his sexual orientation (says a lot about ones state of mind and process of thinking, if you feel that the most defining thing about your whole being is who you chose to spend your nights with).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking Dr. Laura for her stance being religiously based is a little silly, seeing as how the advice she gives her listeners is always religiously based and she has never tried to hide that. If the caller who asked her the question on the air (for those who don't know, Dr. Laura is a syndicated radio psychologist) didn't like the answer he was given, maybe he shouldn't have asked. I doubt she would just come out with this out of the blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

*Stuff*

I agree completely, which is why I hold the opinion that homosexuals couples should be able get the same legal rights as a married couples, we call it, I don't know, "What's in a name?" and be done with it. If that is already true they have nothing to talk about except maybe the Homophobia that seems to be pervasive in today's society.

But this is the humour forum and maybe people seem to find bashing religion funny (and sometimes it can be if done right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Give homosexuals the same status as married heterosexual couples? I just told you that gay is nothing more than a lifestyle choice that is a biological and evolotionary dead end, a man and a woman on the other hand, being united in marriage, are NOT an evolutionary or a biologial dead end. And since a child needs both a mother and a father, the santctity of marriage therefore is to be between a man and a woman.

Giving gays the same sanctity of marriage on the grounds of "we love each other" is ludicrous and here's why:

I do believe that a guy and another guy can trully love each other. Scientists have already identified the hormone that gets released to cause the feelings we call love towards another. So yes, it's very possible that two men or two women can experience those feelings towards one another. However, so can a guy towards his dog, and so can a guy towards his sheep. If you grant the santctity of marriage to gays on the premise of thier love, who are you to argue in that case that a guy that loves his sheep can't get married to it?

Now do you see why the marriage is to be between man and woman, it's a binding contract that makes them as one, in hopes that they can stay one and have kids, raising those kids as a father AND a mother, and building/expanding the evolutionary and biological diversity of this world.

Marriage is NOT to be a binding contract between a two same sex people, or a human and his pet, or 5 same sex people, to be based solely on their feelings. Marriage has certain purposes, and it's purposes are not to be based solely on love alone, but also to the purpose of natural procreation, binding contract that will ensure that said man and woman stay together to raise their child/ren, ect...

As a matter of fact, marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept. Draw your own conclusions from that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

As a matter of fact, marriage is a RELIGIOUS concept. Draw your own conclusions from that....


Yeah, marriage is set by God as a eternal bond between man and woman(so sayeth Bible ) , including certain obligations you all well know.

I don't deny that male pair shouldn't have legal status equal to married, but changing religious code just because someones wants to be christian gay(which seems to be quite impossible) makes the whole thing to lose it credibility.

Maybe gays feel that they can't stick together eternally(or even rest of their lives) without some stronger force behind it..

..Maybe they should start some subsect that allows gay marriages, but in classical christianity it shouldn't be possible.

No offense towards gays, but if you gonna stick in religion(christianity), then you should reconsider your sexual alignment.

-v

PS. perhaps some moderator should throw part of this thread elsewhere so we can start decent debate without joking constantly

<- Drunken yellow ball with sunclasses, hands and legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×