Civil Rights Movement...

[Daetyrnis]

Originally posted by Tomi
Well good ol' Tomi has something to say about this.

First of all, I'm not a homophobe.  I have friends who are gay/lesbian, and I am perfectly fine with that.  However, when it comes down to it, you need to take a look at the purpose of life (oversimplified, but ok nonetheless).  One of the major purposes in nature is to reproduce, and when homosexuality is involved, there is a biological term called "Mechanical Isolation."  It means the parts just don't fit.  You claim homosexuality happens often in nature, but if this really exists to such a caliber like you speak of, the process of natural selection (which includes how well they can reproduce) would cause all of those homosexual species to slowly die out, or at least diminish in numbers, because they are unable to produce the next generation.

I know not all of this connects together perfectly, but I'm just throwing out ideas.

But you see, it does not take homosexuals to make more homosexuals; variance of orientation can literally spring up anywhere.  Sure, the homo penguins will die most likely without offspring, but that has little to no bearing on whether a newborn penguin will be homosexual.

 

I love the injection of humour that you guys put in your posts. It's really lol making.

Knock, knock.

[Almeidaboo]

I don`t see where I said gay couples raise gay children.

I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.

I don`t see why some people are so narrow minded that when they see a ">" sign, they imediately relate it to numbers.

I can`t find the part where I state that sickness and birth defects are related to homosexuality.

I don't see how pointing gramatical mistakes will contribute to the discussion or even make a point stronger.

You can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took. There are so many things involved, and I actually had to study them at University, so it`s not about "Gabriel`s parents told him gay people are bad and dirty". I tried to go as far as typing at work could go, and still people put words in my post.

See, it`s pretty hard to express a point in your non native language.

I apologize if I seem to get hot headed when it comes to discussions, but it`s craved in my lawier`s damn spirit, so I tend to take it to the end.

I don`t care, really. Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).

[Tomi]

Unless you are one of the *insertwordhere*s who thinks it's genetic..

EDIT: Boo beat me to the post.

[Daetyrnis]

Originally posted by Almeidaboo
I don`t see where I said gay couples raise gay children.

Neither do I.

I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.

But you mention several times that homosexuality is directly related with human culture and society, or whatnot.  Lions don't really care about our crazy ways, yet they're still gay.

I don`t see why some people are so narrow minded that when they see a ">" sign, they imediately relate it to numbers.

That was my odd sense of humour if anything, it wasn't meant the be serious.

I can`t find the part where I state that sickness and birth defects are related to homosexuality.

But you did say that these things are the result of not focusing everything on reproduction.  Which is still, in my opinion, untrue.

You can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.

There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life.  There, proved you wrong.

There are so many things involved, and I actually had to study them at University, so it`s not about "Gabriel`s parents told him gay people are bad and dirty". I tried to go as far as typing at work could go, and still people put words in my post.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you saying that it's more than parental influence that causes homophobia?  I would've said that that is a given.

See, it`s pretty hard to express a point in your non native language.

Doesn't mean you're subject to special treatment.

I apologize if I seem to get hot headed when it comes to discussions, but it`s craved in my lawier`s damn spirit, so I tend to take it to the end.

No problem, I enjoy a good debate too.

I don`t care, really. Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).

One, you still haven't refuted anything about having an aunt/uncle/grandparent/friend of the family/whatever filling in that spot.  Two, I think a death of a parent or a break up would be more traumatic on a child than having two parents.  IMO.

[Grandy]

Originally posted by Almeidaboo

I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.

 You said it was not natural, hence I'm proving that it exists on nature.

Originally posted by Tomi
Well good ol' Tomi has something to say about this.

First of all, I'm not a homophobe.  I have friends who are gay/lesbian, and I am perfectly fine with that.  However, when it comes down to it, you need to take a look at the purpose of life (oversimplified, but ok nonetheless).  One of the major purposes in nature is to reproduce, and when homosexuality is involved, there is a biological term called "Mechanical Isolation."  It means the parts just don't fit.  You claim homosexuality happens often in nature, but if this really exists to such a caliber like you speak of, the process of natural selection (which includes how well they can reproduce) would cause all of those homosexual species to slowly die out, or at least diminish in numbers, because they are unable to produce the next generation.

I know not all of this connects together perfectly, but I'm just throwing out ideas.

 I never said that all lions were homosexual.

[Moosetroop11]

XDD

Lol at the adverts


Also:
 

oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).

Good lord, the way you phrase this makes it sound like gays are worse than death or break up!

"I'm sorry, son, your dad's dead. At least he wasn't a gay man."

Same sex adopted kids might not fit your definition of normal as they grow up. Hell, they might actually be more understanding of people who are different to themselves! Wouldn't that be awful!! Maybe you're afraid of the fact that the kid might grow up thinking that homosexuality is normal, and then forget to throw his own son out when he turns out to be gay!

In a world where this orientation can still drive people to disown their loved ones, I think people's viewpoints need to change. Kids with gay parents would help make this a reality. I don't see why it could be a bad thing.

[Razor]

Originally posted by Daetyrnis

Originally posted by AlmeidabooYou can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.

There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life.  There, I didn't mention mankind.[/B]

Hahaha, yes you did! You said it right at the end where you say you didn't say it! You got TRAP'D!

[GaryCXJk]

Marriage always has been a symbolic thing, not something religious. In Greek times people also got married. Dit religion get involved? No. Did homosexuality become taboo? It was a taboo if you were NOT homosexual.

[Ben]

Allright. Im going to state the obvious.

Its human nature to  ****


If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna  ****  him.

That dosent make you any less capable of finding berries or pigs to eat.

[Grandy]

Originally posted by gemini
Allright. Im going to state the obvious.

Its human nature to  ****


If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna  ****  him.

That dosent make you any less capable of finding berries or pigs to eat.

 ... ... ... ?

 *re-reads the post*
 Oooooh, you meant '****', I was pretty sure it was '****'. Which sounded weird:
 "If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna **** him".

[Daetyrnis]

Originally posted by Razor

Originally posted by Daetyrnis

Originally posted by AlmeidabooYou can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.

There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life.  There, I didn't mention mankind.[/B]

Hahaha, yes you did! You said it right at the end where you say you didn't say it! You got TRAP'D![/B]

Oh no!! It's a trap!!

*runs back to edit post*

[Djanki]

Originally posted by SaiKar

Originally posted by Revolution911
Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness (<--Good movie).

Man, I was on your side until you said that. What a load of crock that movie was.[/B]

Hey, I liked it too!

I should mention: My moronicity has blinded me to the fact that the civil rights ARE in effect. People are just against 'em.

But it's too late--the good people of Charas are at each others' throats about it.

I should mention, there's a species of flightless owls that, during mating season, have been known to mount logs.

Yes, fallen tree trunks, a.k.a., logs.

[Razor]

Originally posted by Djanki
I should mention, there's a species of flightless owls that, during mating season, have been known to mount logs.

Yes, fallen tree trunks, a.k.a., logs.

Thank God I'm not the onl- uh, never mind.

[Ben]

Ive got a thing for Geoducks myself.
Hawt.

[Osmose]

Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).

There's two things wrong with this.

1. How is a breakup or death more unnatural than homosexuality? It's definitely more mainstream and more common, but it's hardly less natural unless you have a bias against homosexuality in the first place, which, if you're arguing about why you have that bias, you can't really consider.

2. The reasons of why the child doesn't have that influence affect the lack itself? I mean, if my Dad dies, I lose a masculine influence. If I have two moms, I lose a masculine influence (Unless you consider that women can definitely give such an influence if they try or use someone else to fill the gap). Either one results in the same thing - less of a masculine influence.

You can argue that it would be mentally easier to understand if my father died and I knew him, although that is a moot point because we really don't know - is there a study to cite for proof? No. However, you cannot simply say that you would rather have different reasons for the same result, unless you consider the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, which, again, cannot be reasonably considered when that is the point that we are debating on.