Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ben Kenobi]

It's obviously mythology some iron age villagers made up.

What about it makes you think this is so?

[Kidlicious]

We need to teach kids not to marry axe murderers, especially boys.

[giblets]

We need to teach kids not to marry axe murderers, especially boys.

I think most axe murderers are male. Maybe we should teach boys not to axe murder.

[Kidlicious]

I think most axe murderers are male. Maybe we should teach boys not to axe murder.

Then they might turn out gay.

[giblets]

Then they might turn out gay.

IMHO, that's a lot better than murdering people with an axe.

[Kidlicious]

IMHO, that's a lot better than murdering people with an axe.

There's only a small chance of them becoming an axe murderer. I think the chance of them being gay is 1:10, and 1:5 if you teach them not to murder people with axes.

[Dinner]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710

Greek politicians are wasting time doing junk like we saw in the OP but they still haven't enacted any of the reforms they promised since the last time they ran out of cash. I suspect they will do what they always do which is nothing until the whole economy shuts down again due to their inaction before grudgingly doing part of what they said they would do last time in exchange for more bailout funds.

This is why their recession has gone on so long because they refuse to make the needed reforms and worse their self caused banking crisis earlier cause an economy which was growing at 2% to start shrinking by 2%. They are their own worst enemies.

[Ellestar]

If people want to reproduce they can try to do so (no assurance they will be able to do so). If they don't want to reproduce they don't have to. There is no imperative to do so.

If humans won't reproduce, they'll all die. So humans must reproduce. Again, it's a simple logic. And it's taught in biology classes in Soviet schools. You should be ashamed of your US education system.

You're showing clearly your ignorance here. The argument you are making to support your homophobic stance relies on homosexual relationships causing harm. You have to prove that.

The argument against your homophobic stance only requires to show that oppressing people and denying them equal rights is harm. It is an obvious truth. So long as you can't prove the harm you are claiming is greater than the harm of denying those rights, the harm of denying those rights means it shouldn't be done.

Blah blah blah but once again, you're the one demanding to change the status quo. You may insult me as much as you want, nothing will change that fact Your insults just showcase your lack of arguments in favor of that change.

You claimed if it wasn't genetics it MUST BE gay propaganda.

"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."

What a pathetic liar you are ...

But even if we ignore that you are a liar and allow you to run away from what you said, you have to realize that you can't continue to use the conclusion from the OBVIOUSLY STUPID LOGIC. You're trying to pretend your new updated logic has the same conclusion, when it doesn't.

It must be gay propaganda, but i didn't said it's only gay propaganda. What exactly you don't understand there? I even added more references in posts 81 and 87 proving my claim.

You were whining about how I didn't offer any evidence as to why raping a 12 yo girl was wrong ... that's what.

LOL? I even gave these arguments myself, several times. Maybe you need to go to school and learn how to read?

You're just confused and thinking there's some intent in evolution. There isn't. Evolution doesn't care, it's not a conscious entity.

And again you're spewing bull**** "arguments" that are semi-true in the general sense, but don't prove anything at all, let alone counter my statements. I don't even know how to comment it. Are you denying the existence of reproductive instincts and/or their purpose, or what?

Besides, doesn't your statement claim that evolution is effectively useless because it doesn't achieve anything? That sounds like a denial of evolution to me. It doesn't need to exist in a physical world as a single entity to have an effect, just like, say, gravitation exists, can be learned and measured and does certain specific things without being a single physical entity.

At least, that's the only way how i can connect your statement to my argument. Either that, or you just posted some random trivia that evolution is not a conscious entitiy, but that doesn't mean anything by itself. As i proven, evolution doesn't need to be conscious or be an entitiy to have a certain measurable and explainable effect.

Also you are ignoring that homosexuals can and do reproduce without having sex with the opposite gender and that heterosexuals don't necessarily reproduce.

And why exactly it's relevant?

There is no purpose of A except what people want to ascribe to it. It's purely subjective. If utility is maximized by someone having sex for intimacy but not reproduction, that is what is "right" for that person. Pretending that what is "right" is the same for all people in all situations is showing a blatant ignorance of reality.

But scientists agreed that it is so. Look, it's how all science works - there are a lot theories coming from observation and experiments, and then a majority of scientists should agree that certain theory is true to make it true. So basically you oppose the entire science system by claiming that reproductive instincts are "subjective". Seriously, your "arguments" are just plain mind-boggling. If you need to topple scientific theories and evolution itself to protect your beloved rights of gays, then i guess it's a good reason to stop and think a little, is it really a good idea to protect the rights of gays

Yes, you use stupid bigotted logic that relies on bald-faced lies to pretend you didn't say what you actually said while still promoting the conclusion of the stupid logic even you know is wrong. In short you are a liar, hypocrite, and bigot. I am very glad we don't use the same logic or reasoning.

That's exactly what i think about you

So you're saying that single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids?

See, again you put a words in my mouth that i didn't said. My claim was that it is a reason to stop and think, is it a good idea to increase a number of problems that we already have from a single parent families by adding homosexual families in a mix? In addition to other problems with homosexual families.

You are ignoring that role models don't have to be parents, that feminine and masculine aren't necessarily tied to gender, and that heterosexual parents can be absent or bad role models. Your "logic" is just so full of holes it's laughable. You clearly are just trying to make up some pseudo-scientific nonsense to pretend your hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals isn't just hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals.

Who said i'm ignoring it? I'm just saying that that's one extra problem to think about, not the only one 100% all-encompassing problem that completely changes everything. Seriously, your pro-gay zeal completely clouds your judgement, to the point that, like all religious fanatics, you start to deny scientific theories and evolution. Isn't it a sign that you're not thinking logically?

[Ellestar]

But children aren't interested in having sexual relationships before puberty... and generally I don't think people want their teenage children having heterosexual sexual relationships either.

Ok, let's make it super-simple. An example of "boy-wifes", certain coming-of-age gay rituals and other such things in certain cultures proves that absolute majority of young teenagers (at the very least, males) can be easily taught that gay relationship and marriages are totally ok. Given that teenagers usually have a hard time socializing with opposite sex, and best friends of teenagers are usually of the same sex, teaching them (or god forbig giving them an example by putting them into a same sex family) that their best friend is a valid sexual partner is a recipe for disaster - given that most of them will not really be 100% homosexual, they'll be just taught wrong things.

[Bereta_Eder]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710

Greek politicians are wasting time doing junk like we saw in the OP but they still haven't enacted any of the reforms they promised since the last time they ran out of cash. I suspect they will do what they always do which is nothing until the whole economy shuts down again due to their inaction before grudgingly doing part of what they said they would do last time in exchange for more bailout funds.

This is why their recession has gone on so long because they refuse to make the needed reforms and worse their self caused banking crisis earlier cause an economy which was growing at 2% to start shrinking by 2%. They are their own worst enemies.

If you want some more homosexual love from me on this issue take it to another thread

[Aeson]

If humans won't reproduce, they'll all die. So humans must reproduce.

No, it's a fictional "requirement" you are creating to support your hatred of gays, then not applying it to anyone but homosexuals because you're a hypocrite.

Blah blah blah but once again, you're the one demanding to change the status quo.

My argument is well-proven. Allowing people to live their lives as they choose is an obvious benefit so long as their choices aren't harming anyone else.

Your argument has nothing to back it up but hatred, bigotry, and subjective criteria applied inconsistently. You haven't shown any harm caused by homosexual relationships. Yet you claim it exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that harm exists, because that's the only way you can justify the obvious harm that comes from denying people rights.

It must be gay propaganda, but i didn't said it's only gay propaganda.

You are a bald faced liar. You said that genetics and gay propaganda add up to 100%. You specifically said those two things add up to 100%.

Now you're trying to pretend you didn't say that, when everyone can see you did say that. You're just a pathetic liar who is unable to keep your story straight in your hate-fueled rants against homosexuals.

The reality is since there are more than 2 possible factors at play, your conclusion that it must be "gay propaganda" is obviously unsupported, and you haven't yet shown any evidence for how much, if any, of the remainder is "gay propaganda".

Not to mention that your use of "gay propaganda" to refer to homosexuals being able to adopt kids or marry is laughable, since neither of those things is propaganda.

LOL? I even gave these arguments myself, several times. Maybe you need to go to school and learn how to read?

Yet you kept whining about how I didn't offer any proof as to why raping a 12yo girl was bad. I can't help that you're so stupid that you end up contradicting yourself from sentence to sentence. I can point it out though

Are you denying the existence of reproductive instincts and/or their purpose, or what?

Sex drive obviously exists. The form it takes varies from person to person. Some people have a strong sex drive. Some have little to no sex drive. Some are attracted to one sex, some to another, some to both (to varying extents). Some equate sex strongly with reproduction, some completely detach reproduction. It's not this simple "all humans must reproduce" drive you are making it out to be.

You seem to have a problem with what evolution has lead to, which is hilarious given how you're making evolution into some sort of God to decide what is right and wrong.

Besides, doesn't your statement claim that evolution is effectively useless because it doesn't achieve anything?

We weren't discussing the effects evolution had. We were discussing your interpretation of it in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry and/or raise children. Evolution doesn't care about that, it has obviously lead to a world where there are homosexuals. If anything can be divined from that it's that there is some sort of evolutionary benefit to having a significant portion of the population be homosexual.

That sounds like a denial of evolution to me.

That's because you're an idiot who doesn't understand evolution or how to draw conclusions from the effects of evolution. You're just blinded by your hatred of homosexuals.

It doesn't need to exist in a physical world as a single entity to have an effect, just like, say, gravitation exists, can be learned and measured and does certain specific things without being a single physical entity.

You are attributing wants and desires to evolution. You are just projecting your own hatred. Evolution demonstrably has resulted in homosexuality being present throughout human history, and in many other species. Instead you want to pretend that evolution proves homosexuality is wrong, the reality is that evolution has resulted in homosexuality.

And why exactly it's relevant?

Because your entire argument hinges on the "logic" that since homosexuals can't reproduce it must be unnatural and thus wrong for them to have relationships or raise children. Not to mention that you are arguing they can't reproduce, which is just factually wrong.

Your argument is just layer after layer of hate-fueled ignorance.

If you need to topple scientific theories and evolution itself to protect your beloved rights of gays, then i guess it's a good reason to stop and think a little, is it really a good idea to protect the rights of gays

It is good to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry and to be able to raise children. No science has to be toppled to do so, because what you are claiming as "science" to back up your hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals is either not applicable, or so twisted by your hate that it's not science at all.

See, again you put a words in my mouth that i didn't said. My claim was that it is a reason to stop and think, is it a good idea to increase a number of problems that we already have from a single parent families by adding homosexual families in a mix? In addition to other problems with homosexual families.

It's called a rhetorical question, dip****. I was pointing out you're a hypocrite for not applying the same reasoning to single parent families. Obviously the reason you want to deny homosexuals the right to raise children isn't the "reasoning" you're using here, but simply hatred of homosexuals. Your reasoning is something you haphazardly make up to try to justify your hatred since you know it's ugly and disgusting and aren't willing to just come out and say you hate homosexuals and want to punish them.

Since you don't have the same hate of single parents (so long as they aren't homosexuals) you don't apply the same "reasoning" in regards to them.

You still haven't shown any evidence that there are problems with homosexual families. You want to deny homosexuals the right to raise children or even get married because of this "harm" which you can't show exists.

Seriously, your pro-gay zeal completely clouds your judgement, to the point that, like all religious fanatics, you start to deny scientific theories and evolution. Isn't it a sign that you're not thinking logically?

You aren't presenting scientific arguments. You're presenting baseless conjecture, inconsistent reasoning, and confusing actual science with your homophobic ignorance of what evolution is and what it means in regards to what is right and wrong.

[Ellestar]

I'm a little tired of answering to obvious hate in Aeson's posts... I think it's obvious who's heart is full of hate here...

You are a bald faced liar. You said that genetics and gay propaganda add up to 100%. You specifically said those two things add up to 100%.

Now you're trying to pretend you didn't say that, when everyone can see you did say that. You're just a pathetic liar who is unable to keep your story straight in your hate-fueled rants against homosexuals.

I said "same sex propaganda increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship". I didn't said that "same sex propaganda is the only other reason, other than genes, that increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship". It's very hard to argue with you, you know? When i make a statement that is like impossible to argue with, you find a way to twist it in a way you want anyway...

The reality is since there are more than 2 possible factors at play, your conclusion that it must be "gay propaganda" is obviously unsupported, and you haven't yet shown any evidence for how much, if any, of the remainder is "gay propaganda".

Hmm, let me think. Advertisements work. Education works. Parent's example works. Why do you think specifically gay propaganda will not work, if it may come in a form of advertisement, education or a parent's example? Face it, you're denying the basics of the basics, that's how entire human society works, and you say it doesn't work that way There are also examples of a cultures with a far more widespread homosexual relations, you decided to ignore that thing too.

Not to mention that your use of "gay propaganda" to refer to homosexuals being able to adopt kids or marry is laughable, since neither of those things is propaganda.

We'll agree to disagree. I don't want to invent specific terms for each possible action that promotes the idea of homosexual relations one way or another. That's just nonsense.

Yet you kept whining about how I didn't offer any proof as to why raping a 12yo girl was bad. I can't help that you're so stupid that you end up contradicting yourself from sentence to sentence. I can point it out though

Well, if lying makes you feel better, because i didn't ask you specifically for that...

We weren't discussing the effects evolution had. We were discussing your interpretation of it in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry and/or raise children. Evolution doesn't care about that, it has obviously lead to a world where there are homosexuals. If anything can be divined from that it's that there is some sort of evolutionary benefit to having a significant portion of the population be homosexual.

And i'm sure scientists can explain it somehow? Like they did it with other things about evolution? Please offer us their wisdom on benefits of homosexuality

You are attributing wants and desires to evolution. You are just projecting your own hatred. Evolution demonstrably has resulted in homosexuality being present throughout human history, and in many other species. Instead you want to pretend that evolution proves homosexuality is wrong, the reality is that evolution has resulted in homosexuality.

Evolution also resulted in genetic diseases. So a simple fact alone that evolution resulted in homosexuality doesn't prove that homosexuality is good or desirable. You need to think about some other argument.

Because your entire argument hinges on the "logic" that since homosexuals can't reproduce it must be unnatural and thus wrong for them to have relationships or raise children. Not to mention that you are arguing they can't reproduce, which is just factually wrong.

Not entire, there is also a probelm of psychological harm to children.

It's called a rhetorical question, dip****. I was pointing out you're a hypocrite for not applying the same reasoning to single parent families.

Single parent families is a problem that can't be easily solved (if at all). But there is no need to add another problem by allowing homosexual families.

Obviously the reason you want to deny homosexuals the right to raise children isn't the "reasoning" you're using here, but simply hatred of homosexuals. Your reasoning is something you haphazardly make up to try to justify your hatred since you know it's ugly and disgusting and aren't willing to just come out and say you hate homosexuals and want to punish them.

ROFLMAO
Just like i don't feel anything towards you, despite all your displayed hate towards me that is obvious from your posts, i don't care about homosexuals either. There is no reason to care about things like that on a personal level. I mean, if i can ignore your personal attacks against me, surely i can ignore that someone is having sex in a different way, don't you think? I may hate Nazi and Nazi supporters, but that's because they're killing people or support killing people because of THEIR hate. And that's about it i think.

You still haven't shown any evidence that there are problems with homosexual families. You want to deny homosexuals the right to raise children or even get married because of this "harm" which you can't show exists.

And they do exist? How can i show problems with something that doesn't exist? You're being unreasonable.

[Bereta_Eder]

My personal opinion on the matter of homosexuality is that it seems to be more or less stable throughout the years.

It's also not a threat if you see it worldwide. Human population has exploded.

Reduced birth rates seem to come from afluent societies not poor ones that incidendly also have a tough stance on homosexuality.

About the children issue.
First, there is no way to block a homosexual couple from having a child. It will have it through various methods.
One will be the parent, the other the guardian, so to speak.

So gays with children is already here.

Adoption is a different issue because there is no hereditary right of prenthood to an adopted child before adoption.


I believe that orphan children left to stare at the ceiling of an oprhanage will feel more left out than being in a loving family of gay people (who will have to be scrutinized extra carefully, just like any other potential heterosexual family).
I also believe he/she will be more happy than in a bad family of heterosexual people.

BUT all that are matters for society to decide.
Gay rights are here and fully respected and society will decide in a future time about the adoption issue (which I predict will be devisive)

Also I don't think that nature should be a compass for all things. Humans are part of nature and they do open heart sergury something that "nature" alone, can't do.

[giblets]

Ok, let's make it super-simple. An example of "boy-wifes", certain coming-of-age gay rituals and other such things in certain cultures proves that absolute majority of young teenagers (at the very least, males) can be easily taught that gay relationship and marriages are totally ok. Given that teenagers usually have a hard time socializing with opposite sex, and best friends of teenagers are usually of the same sex, teaching them (or god forbig giving them an example by putting them into a same sex family) that their best friend is a valid sexual partner is a recipe for disaster - given that most of them will not really be 100% homosexual, they'll be just taught wrong things.

There's a huge difference between convincing someone that they should tolerate other people's homosexual relationships and actually making someone want to have same sex relationships with their friends.

[Aeson]

I said "same sex propaganda increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship". I didn't said that "same sex propaganda is the only other reason, other than genes, that increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship". It's very hard to argue with you, you know? When i make a statement that is like impossible to argue with, you find a way to twist it in a way you want anyway...

Originally posted by a bigotted liar:

"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."

You are just lying. You very plainly said that if it's not 100% genes than it has to be "same sex propaganda" at work. Your "logic" was that anything not genetic must be "same sex propaganda" because those "are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities". That is obviously false, and you obviously said it, and you are obviously lying about having said it even though it's ridiculously easy for anyone to look at what you said in this thread and see that you did indeed say it.

You're a liar.