Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Kidlicious]

Everything in Genesis is a fairy tale, unless you really believe a global flood happened

Oh and the nephilim, is there any evidence that giant humanoids who were the spawn of angels and humans existed?

Exodus isn't much better, how could 600,000 Jews live in the Sinai peninsula for forty years without leaving behind any archaeological evidence of their presence?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe God isn't just a scientists?

[giblets]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe God isn't just a scientists?

Given how much of the Bible has been proven wrong why take the rest of it seriously?

[Kidlicious]

Given how much of the Bible has been proven wrong why take the rest of it seriously?

This rest? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You don't believe because of how much you can prove. Why would you even think that? Have you read the Bible? I don't know how someone who has read the Bible would think that. I think you just look at atheist websites and report what you see there. Do you think that's how to understand how someone can believe in the Bible?

[giblets]

This rest? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You don't believe because of how much you can prove. Why would you even think that? Have you read the Bible? I don't know how someone who has read the Bible would think that. I think you just look at atheist websites and report what you see there. Do you think that's how to understand how someone can believe in the Bible?

I have read the parts of the Bible I was referring to. It's obviously mythology some iron age villagers made up.

[Ellestar]

Humans don't need to reproduce. They also don't need sex to reproduce. There are homosexuals who pass on their genes, and there are heterosexuals who don't.

You're just making things up and ignoring reality to try to support your hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals.

Oh come on, you started to make bat**** crazy arguments like "humans don't need to reproduce". If anything, human does not need it, humans do. All these words are just sophisms.

You are the one wanting to deny people rights based on "harm" you claim is happening, the onus is on you to prove there is harm.

Actually, to begin with, it's you and people like you who want to give extra rights to gays compared to a current status quo. So it's your side who needs to prove things

As gribbler pointed out, your "simple logic" is stupid. You are claiming there are only 2 possible influences on sexuality (genetics and "gay propaganda"), which is utterly retarded.

Actually, my argument is different - either it's 100% genetics, or genetics and other things including gay propaganda.

Raping a 12 yo girl is bad. It's obvious as to why, which is why I felt I didn't need to explain the reasoning behind that assessment. I guess I overestimated your intelligence.

It's obvious. So what?

I gave you 3 ways your logic was wrong in direct answer to your question as to where the mistake is in your logic. You ignored all 3 points and posted some drivel that had nothing to do with what I had quoted or what you quoted.

Huh? Look, if reproductive instincts tell someone to have a same sex relationship that can't possibly lead to actual reproduction, then there is obvously something wrong with that person's reproductive instincts. I don't understand how you can argue with that phrase even in theory, let alone in practice. Your words just don't make any sense. If the only purpose of A is to lead to B, but it doesn't, then something is wrong. I don't understand how you can make a logic even simpler than that. If we can't agree on something as basic as that, then i guess we should just stop arguing, because we just use different kinds of logic, or something.

You're a hateful bigot.

The reality is that there are all sorts of parents, and whether a person is a good parent or a bad parent has nothing to do with their gender or sexuality.

But come on. Obvious risk for childs in homosexual "families" is a lack of a same sex role model, for example. How can you just ignore it? It's an inherent problem in a homosexual "family" that has nothing to do with being good or bad parent.

[Ellestar]

"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.

I don't really think that "being gay" is an on/off switch, really, given that a percent of gays is fluctating in a very wide corridor depending on a local culture, from almost zero to apparently almost 100% in some places in Africa (whatever i quickly googled as an example of what i'm talking about: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-christianity). Given such a wide fluctuation that seems to depend on a local culture (basically, what is good and what is bad), an effect of a gay propaganda seems to be THE most influential factor by far.

[Ellestar]

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.

By the same argument, why don't you campaign to allow polygamy? Polygamy obviously makes more sense then homosexual relationships, and a lot of people actually have had something like unofficial polygamy relationship (i.e. more than one sexual partner at the same time in their lives).

[Kidlicious]

I have read the parts of the Bible I was referring to. It's obviously mythology some iron age villagers made up.

So you were searching for natural explanations to spiritual questions? Why were you reading the Bible, or did you just get that stuff off of an atheist website?

[giblets]

So you were searching for natural explanations to spiritual questions? Why were you reading the Bible, or did you just get that stuff off of an atheist website?

Why shouldn't I read it? It's very influential.

[Kidlicious]

Why shouldn't I read it? It's very influential.

If you aren't looking for spiritual truth you aren't going to find it.

[giblets]

I don't really think that "being gay" is an on/off switch, really, given that a percent of gays is fluctating in a very wide corridor depending on a local culture, from almost zero to apparently almost 100% in some places in Africa (whatever i quickly googled as an example of what i'm talking about: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-christianity). Given such a wide fluctuation that seems to depend on a local culture (basically, what is good and what is bad), an effect of a gay propaganda seems to be THE most influential factor by far.

The only thing in your link indicating universal homosexual activity in some cultures is this:

There have been other indicators that the transition from boyhood to adulthood within many African ethnic groups involved same-sex sexual activities.

this is a level of social pressure to engage in same-sex sexual activities that, realistically, would never happen in a western society except when people are forced to stay in an environment where they only interact with members of the same sex (such as prisons).

But a gay person isn't someone who would conceivably have homosexual sex under specific circumstances. A gay person is someone with a strong sexual preference for members of the same sex. It's possible for social pressure to affect someone's behavior, but I don't see much evidence that propaganda can change someone's preference.

[Ellestar]

this is a level of social pressure to engage in same-sex sexual activities that, realistically, would never happen in a western society except when people are forced to stay in an environment where they only interact with members of the same sex (such as prisons).

But a gay person isn't someone who would conceivably have homosexual sex under specific circumstances. A gay person is someone with a strong sexual preference for members of the same sex. It's possible for social pressure to affect someone's behavior, but I don't see much evidence that propaganda can change someone's preference.

Fine, i agree with you. But there is a problem specifically with children - they don't need any significant amount of pressure to be ok with a same-sex relationship, or at least with an idea that a same-sex relationship is as good as a different-sex relationship, as it appears to be given the existence of "boy-wifes" and other such practices in some cultures. So it comes back to my argument that children should be protected from same-sex relationship propaganda for the same reason they can't give consent, children just can't realise what they're getting into and what are the repercussions of it. So they shouldn't be a target of such propaganda while they're vulnerable to it without properly understanding what it is.

[giblets]

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.

[Aeson]

Oh come on, you started to make bat**** crazy arguments like "humans don't need to reproduce". If anything, human does not need it, humans do. All these words are just sophisms.

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.

Actually, to begin with, it's you and people like you who want to give extra rights to gays compared to a current status quo. So it's your side who needs to prove things

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.

Actually, my argument is different - either it's 100% genetics, or genetics and other things including gay propaganda.

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's obvious. So what?

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

Look, if reproductive instincts tell someone to have a same sex relationship that can't possibly lead to actual reproduction, then there is obvously something wrong with that person's reproductive instincts.

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.

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

If the only purpose of A is to lead to B, but it doesn't, then something is wrong.

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.

If we can't agree on something as basic as that, then i guess we should just stop arguing, because we just use different kinds of logic, or something.

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.

But come on. Obvious risk for childs in homosexual "families" is a lack of a same sex role model, for example. How can you just ignore it? It's an inherent problem in a homosexual "family" that has nothing to do with being good or bad parent.

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

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see much evidence that propaganda can change someone's preference.

If this is the case then there's no justification for showing it to children. The argument usually goes along the lines that it's necessary to overcome what is perceived to be prejudice, but this presupposes that propaganda is effective with children.

Both Stalin and Hitler said the same thing, which is why they believed it was essential to gain control over education. And why we see it again here. Generally people do things for a reason. If they believed it to be ineffectual than they wouldn't be doing it. That they do it and insist strongly on it indicates that they believe it is effective.