|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 10:36:30 GMT
Based on human nature, no homosexual union of any kind will ever be accepted as a norm by everyone. That's because heterosexuals see it as a threat and not as the accepted norm in society. Yes, that is just human nature, yet heterosexuals need to take responsibility for the children they create of various sexualities, because they are the ones doing ALL the breeding. Fools! Yes we do the breeding and you depend on us for your recruitment. Sorry about that but not even the pink $ has been able to come up with a way to get children without women. As I say, sorry about that - but not really. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 10:59:40 GMT
Your sneer about 80 year olds marrying showsthat you have not understood anything I said. There was no sneer in what I said. Just as romantic, to them, as a man and a woman having sex and calling it marriage. By "messed up", do you mean "accepting of gay people"? In what other way are they messed up? If you're not the conservative we think you are, then you are making a grand effort at reinforcing just that view. The world is changing - I didn't like it at first myself, but then I realised I didn't really have a reason for not liking it, except that it was unfamiliar. And as gay people raising children is something very, very new, there are no statistics as yet that can show if it has a detrimental effect on the child's psyche, or society at large. So your reasons, too, are grounded solely in your prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 11:13:26 GMT
Your sneer about 80 year olds marrying showsthat you have not understood anything I said. There was no sneer in what I said. Just as romantic, to them, as a man and a woman having sex and calling it marriage. By "messed up", do you mean "accepting of gay people"? In what other way are they messed up? If you're not the conservative we think you are, then you are making a grand effort at reinforcing just that view. The world is changing - I didn't like it at first myself, but then I realised I didn't really have a reason for not liking it, except that it was unfamiliar. And as gay people raising children is something very, very new, there are no statistics as yet that can show if it has a detrimental effect on the child's psyche, or society at large. So your reasons, too, are grounded solely in your prejudice. How can deliberately robbing a child of its mother and half its heritage, and pretending that some unrelated male who may not even stay around for 6 months after the transaction in which the child is bought be anything other than detrimental? |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 11:17:22 GMT
Yes we do the breeding and you depend on us for your recruitment. Sorry about that but not even the pink $ has been able to come up with a way to get children without women. As I say, sorry about that - but not really. YOU FEAR DYING OUT. You are a very simpleminded, prejudiced and dense woman. Women can't have children without men either and just look at the type of men most get with. It's no wonder the gene pool is so contaminated. If you have children or intend to have children, I pity them. Yes, I guess being sorry is what you should be saying, and many others like you, who have screwed up the planet. I have children and each of them is of benefit to the society they live in. Far from screwing up the planet they are assets to it. |
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
 
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 12:52:00 GMT
Based on human nature, no homosexual union of any kind will ever be accepted as a norm by everyone. That's because heterosexuals see it as a threat and not as the accepted norm in society. Not true. A great many men don't see homosexuals or homosexuality as any kind of 'threat' at all. Instead, they see homosexuals as sick and twisted individuals, and [the act of] homosexuality as wrong. Responsibility is very important. 'Various' sexualities? There are only two. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 12:55:55 GMT
Straight, gay, bisexual, asexual... I make that four already. |
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 13:10:22 GMT
Straight, gay, bisexual, asexual... I make that four already. Well if you say so, but none of it makes it true. There are TWO 'sexes' in [normal] nature: Male and Female. People can call 'Red' 'Green' if they want to; it doesn't mean the colors are changed. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 13:24:55 GMT
How can deliberately robbing a child of its mother and half its heritage, and pretending that some unrelated male who may not even stay around for 6 months after the transaction in which the child is bought be anything other than detrimental? "Robbing"? What "robbing"? Are you opposed to adoption and surrogacy for straight couples too, then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 13:26:46 GMT
Because marriage by definition is exclusively the union of a man and a woman. I really don't get the point of this argument. The meaning of words are not objectively fixed and invariable. Words mean what people use them to mean. So if we change "marriage" to include gay couples, then that's what "marriage" means now. To object to gay marriage on the basis that "that's not what the word means" is ridiculous. I mean, suppose we invented a legal and social institution called "Schmarriage". "Schmarriage" is absolutely identical to marriage in every single way... except that gay couples can get "schmarried" too. Would you be okay with that? Your "by definition" objection has gone down the tubes now, because we're using a different word with a different definition, right? So you're actually in favour of gay "marriage", just so long as we call it something else. But then, what on Earth is the point of having two different words for two institutions that are identical in every meaningful way? It's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 13:28:15 GMT
Straight, gay, bisexual, asexual... I make that four already. Well, "asexual" is hardly a sexuality, any more than atheism is a religion. And I very much doubt anyone is asexual except for traumatic experiences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 13:31:48 GMT
How can deliberately robbing a child of its mother and half its heritage, and pretending that some unrelated male who may not even stay around for 6 months after the transaction in which the child is bought be anything other than detrimental? Can you make an argument against gay marriage that also can't be made against straight marriage? So far you've said "it's not romantic". I know plenty of straight marriages that are not romantic. You've said the child might be robbed of its mother. Plenty of straight marriages do that. You've said the other partner might not stick around. Plenty of straight marriages do that. Is there ANY argument that doesn't apply equally? |
|
CoyoteGraves
Sophomore
Smarmy
@coyotegraves
Posts: 349
Likes: 137
|
Post by CoyoteGraves on Feb 19, 2017 13:37:20 GMT
Straight, gay, bisexual, asexual... I make that four already. Well, "asexual" is hardly a sexuality, any more than atheism is a religion. And I very much doubt anyone is asexual except for traumatic experiences.
I'm asexual, and believe me, it's not due to trauma.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 13:41:14 GMT
Well, "asexual" is hardly a sexuality, any more than atheism is a religion. And I very much doubt anyone is asexual except for traumatic experiences.
I'm asexual, and believe me, it's not due to trauma.
Please explain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 13:42:18 GMT
I really don't get the point of this argument. The meaning of words are not objectively fixed and invariable. Words mean what people use them to mean. So if we change "marriage" to include gay couples, then that's what "marriage" means now. To object to gay marriage on the basis that "that's not what the word means" is ridiculous. I mean, suppose we invented a legal and social institution called "Schmarriage". "Schmarriage" is absolutely identical to marriage in every single way... except that gay couples can get "schmarried" too. Would you be okay with that? Your "by definition" objection has gone down the tubes now, because we're using a different word with a different definition, right? So you're actually in favour of gay "marriage", just so long as we call it something else. But then, what on Earth is the point of having two different words for two institutions that are identical in every meaningful way? It's ridiculous. You're ridiculous and your statement as retarded as your avatar. No, I don't support this travesty. I'm in favor of reparative therapy. Suck on that, lol Meds, chemical castration for all gays, except those who don't annoy me at forums and/or stay in the closet. Psychotherapy, electroshock, lobotomy (for all libs, not just the gays) is what I would strongly recommend Trump force upon the likes of ridiculous you. If none of it works, mass gassings. The only way that makes sense if is you lied, and your objection is NOT "it's a man and a woman by definition". So what's your REAL objection? |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Feb 19, 2017 13:44:08 GMT
Asexual is absence of sexuality/drive. it's like saying see-through is a color or atheist a religion. Wrong! Bisexual is just a gay proving that gay is a choice and why other gays hate them. Either way, these are gays. It's like the 1 drop Black blood. This like saying Rashida Jones or Lena Horne are White. Wrong! Mixed that they are, still Blacks! I'm sorry but why are they black and not white if they are mixed? Are they only black? Yes a child with one black parent and one white parent is black... but guess what it is also white. To claim otherwise is beyond ridiculous. |
|
CoyoteGraves
Sophomore
Smarmy
@coyotegraves
Posts: 349
Likes: 137
|
Post by CoyoteGraves on Feb 19, 2017 13:45:30 GMT
I'm asexual, and believe me, it's not due to trauma.
Please explain?
What part needs an explanation?
|
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 19, 2017 13:46:42 GMT
It will be the exact same thing, as the parents continue to be the parents. And no, marriage isn't about having children, it's about showing others that you love eachother. Not even sex is about having kids. Think about it, do you truly think that the dogs mate because they want puppies, or because the male dog finds the female dogs butt to be luscious and the female dog are horny. ? Dogs mate to reproduce, all animals do. You picked a bad example! In animals it's all about hormones, they don't mate all year round. If Swedes don't believe in families that goes a long way towards explaining your very high rate of depression and suicide! How can a father who has moved out and is with another woman, continue to be a father the way he used to be? When his son cries in the night in terror will be get out of bed and travel across the city to comfort his child? Marriage is about children. I went out very briefly with a Swedish man who had his children with him, he'd stolen them from under their mother's nose and brought them across the world to New Zealand (he was found and got into trouble, because contrary to what he believed, his children were entitled to a mother.) His excuse that he hadn't married the woman didn't work with either his government or ours. No, all animals, including humans, mate because they have the urge to do so, and the offspring is just a "biproduct". And since when wasn't love or the sexual urge hormonal? Do you only have sex with your partner when you want to have an other child? Our high suicide and depression rates? Well Sweetie, first of all we come in a 58th place with 11,1 suicides per 100 000 and you guys has 9,6, and keep in mind that we are taking in far more refugees than you, they come from wars and have seen horrible thing and many are at risk for suicide, second of all, we dont have much sun during winter, in some areas the sun doesn't come up at all. Do you know what lack of sunlight does to you? And what was your anecdote supposed to prove? |
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 19, 2017 13:57:40 GMT
No they're not. A gay man can father a biological child and his partner can adopt it. A gay woman can give birth to a biological child and her partner can adopt it. He can beget a child but only by paying a woman, thus going outside the marriage and subjecting the child to a lifetime of pretence. What utter bull. You cannot grasp the idea of people doing things out of the kindness of their hearts or gay couples working together to be blessed with children? |
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 19, 2017 14:00:21 GMT
Swedish, a country with about 85 % agnostics and atheists. Christianity never succeded to truly take it's hold of us, the viking blood was to hard to wash away. Children that was born out of wedlock were legitimate if the parents at least got engaged. Untrue. Whats not true? Me being swedish or what? |
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 14:01:46 GMT
What part needs an explanation?
Your self definition as 'asexual'. |
|
