Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ellestar]

Evolution wasn't "created", it just happens ... and there's no "meant for" in regards to evolution. If 2 homosexuals are having sex, that's the result of evolution every bit as much as if two other people have sex and it results in a pregnancy.

That doesn't deny the fact that sex is a mean of a sexual reproduction, and that's the normal use of sex. It was so before mammals, let alone humans existed, and you can't change that fact with your wish alone.

Because you said you respect taboos. If you respect the taboo on raping a 12 yo girl then you are saying that your "normal" is superceded by the things that actually matter. Like consent.

I said a taboo of having sex with a 12 yo girl (it's a more strict than a taboo on rape only). Rape is another taboo.

Consent is important, but why is it important? If you think about it instead of using it as a magical word, it will become obvious that sex with a 12 yo girl or a rape is guaranteed to lead to a lasting psychological and maybe a physical harm, and that's why it's not allowed. But the same psychological harm can be a result of a gay propaganda - instead of making a normal family and having children with a loving one, childs will have an increased risk of forming a same sex relationship. So, children should be protected from that, and rights of children to be protected supercede the rights of gays, just like the rights of victims not to be raped supercede the rights of rapists to have sex with whoever they want.

So you only have sex when it's specifically to have children?

I'm talking about instincts, not about myself.

You personify evolution. It's not a person, it doesn't have intent, it isn't even an entity. You equate homosexuality and bestiality. They are different. You want to elevate "instinct" over choice, pretending only "instinct" (in quotes because it's only a small subset of actual instincts) matters, basically reducing human to unthinking animals ... all to figure out a way to "scientifically" support your hatred of homosexuals.

Wait a second. You make a baseless statement that one cultural practice is better or more right than another cultural practice (at least that's how i see it). One of the ways to discern what is right is to remove culture out of equation altogether, and then we have the instincts and the reasons why instincts are like they are. Also, it's a good idea to think what can harm others, and what can't.

Children are not able to consent to be a target of homophobic propaganda, or anything else parents teach their kids. By your logic, if applied non-hypocritically, NO ONE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN. But instead of actually believing the logic you are applying, you are just cherry picking it's use to fit with your homophobia.

By my logic, homophobic propaganda is harmful to children in exactly the same way as sex is harmful for children - it leads to a psychological problems, inability to make a proper family and so on. And children can't understand that it's harmful to them (same issue as with sex), so they can't give consent to be a target of a homophobic propaganda, just like they can't give consent to have sex.

[Aeson]

Well, then the issue isn't really consent then. That was my point. You're referring to a specific case and not the broader one.

No, your "point" was to ignore what was being said and start throwing up irrelevant strawmen.

The point of what you quoted was that raping a 12 yo girl is wrong, and homosexual sex is not wrong in and of itself.

[Kidlicious]

And yeah there is of course the thing about humanity.
While Mobius will probably swear that goats have feelings, it's not the same.

You shouldn't do things just because you feel like doing things.

[Aeson]

That doesn't deny the fact that sex is a mean of a sexual reproduction, and that's the normal use of sex. It was so before mammals, let alone humans existed, and you can't change that fact with your wish alone.

It's not important. Dogs eat their own ****, it's natural. Doesn't mean we should eat our own ****.

I said a taboo of having sex with a 12 yo girl (it's a more strict than a taboo on rape only). Rape is another taboo.

I said "raping a 12 yo girl" is "normal" by your logic, because you are trying to present sex as only right/wrong based on whether it results in children or not. You dropped the "raping" part, but it was there from the start.

Consent is important, but why is it important? If you think about it instead of using it as a magical word, it will become obvious that sex with a 12 yo girl or a rape is guaranteed to lead to a lasting psychological and maybe a physical harm, and that's why it's not allowed.

Thank you captain obvious.

But the same psychological harm can be a result of a gay propaganda - instead of making a normal family and having children with a loving one, childs will have an increased risk of forming a same sex relationship.

You're simply wrong on all counts. Homosexuality is not a harm to a homosexual person. Homosexuals can make just as good parents as heterosexuals. (Better than bigots like you for sure, especially in cases where their children are homosexual.) And there is no evidence that shows homosexual parents "pass on" homosexuality.

I'm talking about instincts, not about myself.

You're just using a double standard.

Wait a second. You make a baseless statement that one cultural practice is better or more right than another cultural practice (at least that's how i see it). One of the ways to discern what is right is to remove culture out of equation altogether, and then we have the instincts and the reasons why instincts are like they are. Also, it's a good idea to think what can harm others, and what can't.

I said raping a 12 yo girl is wrong, but homosexuals sex is not. That's not just "cultural practice", it's the obvious conclusion of any reasonable assessment of utility.

I'll also note that your response here had absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.

By my logic, homophobic propaganda is harmful to children in exactly the same way as sex is harmful for children - it leads to a psychological problems, inability to make a proper family and so on. And children can't understand that it's harmful to them (same issue as with sex), so they can't give consent to be a target of a homophobic propaganda, just like they can't give consent to have sex.

Then why are you spewing "homophobic propaganda"?

[Kidlicious]

So if a man is attracted to men he has an instinct that's found in over half of the human population?

If you're attracted to axe murderers should you marry them?

[loinburger]

Are you saying that homosexuals are axe murderers, or are you instead posting yet another non sequitur? Are you arguing that it should be illegal to marry an axe murderer? Does this also extend to other criminals, like deadbeat dads?

[giblets]

If you're attracted to axe murderers should you marry them?

I wouldn't recommend marrying someone who likes to murder people, regardless of gender.

[Ellestar]

It's not important. Dogs eat their own ****, it's natural. Doesn't mean we should eat our own ****.

That's an obvious logical fallacy. Humans need to have sex for a sexual reproduction, and humans don't need to eat ****, unlike some other spieces (IIRC some herbivores need to do it because their digestive tract is too short to fully digest food).

I said "raping a 12 yo girl" is "normal" by your logic, because you are trying to present sex as only right/wrong based on whether it results in children or not. You dropped the "raping" part, but it was there from the start.

Where i said about "only"? I said that specifically homosexualism is not normal because of that reason, i never said it's the only reason to consider sex normal or not normal.

You're simply wrong on all counts. Homosexuality is not a harm to a homosexual person. Homosexuals can make just as good parents as heterosexuals.

And how can you prove that not having a normal family is not harmful to a human psyche, if humans are meant to have a normal relationship with a different gender? Your second statement is equally baseless.

And there is no evidence that shows homosexual parents "pass on" homosexuality.

Either it's 100% based on genes, or a same sex propaganda increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship (because it's not 100% based on genes). These are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities, and there is evidence to contrary to the first choice, so second choice is guaranteed to be true. That's a simple logic.

I said raping a 12 yo girl is wrong, but homosexuals sex is not. That's not just "cultural practice", it's the obvious conclusion of any reasonable assessment of utility.

Having sex with a 12 yo girl was considered fine even in Europe for, like, most of it's existence. Same with rape, especially towards persons of a lower status. So it is a "cultural practice" and somehow it wasn't obvious to everyone that it's wrong. Homosexualism was considered fine in ancient Rome or Greece, and was forbidden by Christianity. So you can't just say "this is right and this is wrong because i said so", you need some valid reasons why certain cultural practices should be changed, and a society should agree with you, unless you want to get us back to an allowed rape or whatever by force.

I'll also note that your response here had absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.

Well, your responce was to my words "That means that there is some mistake in reproductive instincts. I don't understand, where exactly is a mistake in my logic?"
If you respond in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted, then what do you want me to respond to?

Then why are you spewing "homophobic propaganda"?

Ops, it's a mistake. It shoud be:

By my logic, gay propaganda is harmful to children in exactly the same way as sex is harmful for children - it leads to a psychological problems, inability to make a proper family and so on. And children can't understand that it's harmful to them (same issue as with sex), so they can't give consent to be a target of a gay propaganda, just like they can't give consent to have sex.

[giblets]

Either it's 100% based on genes, or a same sex propaganda increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship (because it's not 100% based on genes). These are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities, and there is evidence to contrary to the first choice, so second choice is guaranteed to be true. That's a simple logic.

"same sex propaganda" is a small subset of someone's environment. If someone presented evidence that hormonal exposure in the womb affects sexual orientation, that would be evidence that homosexuality is not 100% genetic, but it wouldn't give us any reason to believe that "homosexual propaganda" makes people gay.

[loinburger]

There are a ton of things that aren't 100% genetic - should we criminalize all of them?

The argument for criminalizing (or otherwise persecuting) homosexuality has nothing to do with whether it's genetic and everything to do with simple bigotry, e.g. "I think that gay sex is gross therefore it is immoral or unnatural or who gives a ****."

[Kidlicious]

Are you saying that homosexuals are axe murderers, or are you instead posting yet another non sequitur? Are you arguing that it should be illegal to marry an axe murderer? Does this also extend to other criminals, like deadbeat dads?

I think I was clear. It's wrong to marry axe murderers. I'm not talking about people who you lie about, saying they are axe murderers and they aren't. I'm talking about people who actually murder people with axes.

[loinburger]

It's wrong to marry axe murderers.

Why aren't you campaigning to outlaw the marrying of axe murderers then? It seems that this would be a better use of your time than campaigning to outlaw homosexual marriage.

By your silence/inaction you're actually making the implicit argument that homosexuality is worse than axe murder, which is a bat**** insane argument.

[Kidlicious]

I wouldn't recommend marrying someone who likes to murder people, regardless of gender.

And I wouldn't recommend that you get married to another man.

[Kidlicious]

Why aren't you campaigning to outlaw the marrying of axe murderers then? It seems that this would be a better use of your time than campaigning to outlaw homosexual marriage.

Did that happen in your fantasy world? Because it didn't happen in the real world. If you want to marry an axe murderer I'm not going to stop you. I simply advise you not to.

[loinburger]

Did that happen in your fantasy world? Because it didn't happen in the real world. If you want to marry an axe murderer I'm not going to stop you. I simply advise you not to.

Okay, so you agree that gay marriage should be legal even though you disapprove of it, which is the most reasonable thing that you've posted here in years. Alternatively, you believe that marrying a homosexual is worse than marrying an axe murderer, since you want to ban the former but not the latter.