Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ben Kenobi]

The reality is that if genetics doesn't fully explain homosexuality, that doesn't determine if there is a "gay propaganda" component, because any non-genetic component could be explained by many other potential factors.

Logically if it were ineffectual gay marriage proponents wouldn't be pushing to educate children as young as kindergarten. Are you suggesting they are mistaken? That being said, asserting that genetics doesn't fully explain things does nothing to actually rule out what Ellestar is arguing here. Again, I don't see it as a complicated issue. Gay marriage proponents want it and have pushed hard for it. This leads me to believe that they believe it to be effectual. Given what we know about children and how education, especially at young ages has considerable influence it would seem to me that Ellestar's claim has merit. If, there's nothing to it, then there should be no issues with restricting it. We restrict plenty of things from children, including advertisements depicting smoking. The reason being that it's believed that children will emulate the behavior modeled in front of them. What would be so different here?

[Aeson]

So we have 3 ways to handle the issue: forbid propaganda, test it on live children to see if it's a problem or it isn't or ignore possible danger altogether (which in effect is exactly the same as testing on live children). I choose to forbid propaganda so not to endanger children, you choose to ignore the possible danger and so effectively test it on live children.

You're ridiculous. You want to treat homosexuals as second class citizens to avoid a "harm" you can't show would happen, and can't even show is harmful.

You think your standing has a higher moral ground.

Of course my standing has a higher moral ground. You're a bald-faced liar who supports oppressing people based on sexual orientation ... and apparently yearn for a misogynistic past.

In the same way, if advertisements, parent's example and education works, then why it shouldn't work in the case of gay propaganda.

You haven't shown evidence that any of those things change people's sexual orientation.

You also haven't shown any evidence that homosexuality itself is harm.

Well, i saw gay sex on internet, and it didn't make me gay.

Yah, keep telling yourself that you were watching it because you're straight.

But surprisingly, watching 18+ videos is restricted to 18+ people, so perhaps that may lead people with brains (requirment that excludes US citizens, i guess) to think that things related to sex may have different psychological effects on people of different ages.

Surprisingly, it's not because it changes sexual orientation. So you're still lacking a single piece of evidence that shows that "gay propaganda" you're talking about changes people's sexual orientation.

Again that "free speech" mantra. There are enough of examples when other issues take priority over free speech, so it's not an argument.

It's a perfect argument to put up against someone who can't show any evidence of harm done by the speech.

Denying free speech is an obvious harm. There has to be a proven harm that supersedes it to justify limiting free speech.

And genocide claim is just laughable, current status quo is good enough.

So you're saying some amount of "gay propaganda" is ok, just as long as homosexuals raise their children without publicizing they are homosexuals, and homosexuals can "marry", so long as they don't call it "marriage" ... and this will "protect the children" even though there are countless ways that they will be exposed to homosexuality throughout their lives (like the gay porn you watch). You're stupid, you aren't stopping what you say you want to stop, you're just labelling it somewhat differently to try to pretend it doesn't exist.

And yeah, harems actually make sense, unlike homosexuality.

If a guy (or girl) can attract more than one mate, kudos to them. I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships so long as they are consensual.

"Harems" as they have been throughout history and in places they actually are called "harems" were always a form of enslavement. You're a sick **** to think that that "makes sense".

As i said, i'm not a big fan of experimenting on children. But i given enough evidence of problems in similiar situations.

You haven't shown any evidence of sexual orientation being mutable in the ways you have assumed they are.

It's easy enough to deny adoptions.

It's easy enough to get around adoption restrictions so long as the children won't be taken away with a change in relationship status later on.

And i wouldn't want to take their own children away from homosexual families, that's too extreme.

I'm glad even you can finally admit that homosexuals should be allowed to raise children.

Oh come on, humanity lived with arranged marriage for thousands of years, i would argue that a number of problems related to families has increased with abolishing of arranged marriage practice.

So now that you've backed off the homophobia a bit, you're instead doubling down with misogyny (support for forced marriages and harems) ...

[Kidlicious]

Logically if it were ineffectual gay marriage proponents wouldn't be pushing to educate children as young as kindergarten. Are you suggesting they are mistaken? That being said, asserting that genetics doesn't fully explain things does nothing to actually rule out what Ellestar is arguing here. Again, I don't see it as a complicated issue. Gay marriage proponents want it and have pushed hard for it. This leads me to believe that they believe it to be effectual. Given what we know about children and how education, especially at young ages has considerable influence it would seem to me that Ellestar's claim has merit. If, there's nothing to it, then there should be no issues with restricting it. We restrict plenty of things from children, including advertisements depicting smoking. The reason being that it's believed that children will emulate the behavior modeled in front of them. What would be so different here?

We KNOW children will emulate behavior modeled in front of them. They do it everywhere.

[Aeson]

Logically if it were ineffectual gay marriage proponents wouldn't be pushing to educate children as young as kindergarten.

You don't even have a clue what you were responding to it seems. Ellestar is saying "gay propaganda" is changing sexual orientation, not political views.

Are you suggesting they are mistaken?

I'm pointing out there is no evidence that they are changing sexual orientation.

That being said, asserting that genetics doesn't fully explain things does nothing to actually rule out what Ellestar is arguing here.

Again, you're obviously completely lost here. Ellestar was the one who brought up genetics and if it fully explained homosexuality. He just then used that "unknown" factor, claimed it proved that "gay propaganda" turned kids gay, without a shred of evidence to back up his claims.

What would be so different here?

Sexual orientation isn't just a habit or a choice.

Also there is a huge body of evidence that smoking is harmful to an individual.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm pointing out there is no evidence that they are changing sexual orientation.

Ok. Well, we're banning smoking commercials because we believe that children will model behavior they are presented. What, in this case, makes it different from smoking? Do you believe it to be fixed? Kinsey didn't believe that so I'm not sure why people believe it when Kinsey did not. Kinsey believed that it was fluid.

Sexual orientation isn't just a habit or a choice.

Well, that's the core issue, no? If it's not genetic, then it would seem that environmental conditions would play a role, which would include things like upbringing.

Also there is a huge body of evidence that smoking is harmful to an individual.

Likewise in this case. There are significant conditions associated with homosexuality activity, much in the same way as there are significant conditions associated with smoking.

[Kidlicious]

Sexual orientation isn't just a habit or a choice.

We aren't just talking about sexual orientation. We're talking about all homosexual acts, isn't that correct. I'm sure a child that is oriented towards homosexuality is likely to engage in it, but we're talking about the others as well. There's many bi-sexuals, for example.

Also there is a huge body of evidence that smoking is harmful to an individual.

Only 1-30 smokers ever have serious health problems resulting from smoking. How many people have serious health problems resulting from sodomy? Is there a difference?

[Aeson]

What, in this case, makes it different from smoking?

There's certainly a genetic/hormonal (at least in the womb) component to sexual orientation, likely a very large one.

Well, that's the core issue, no? If it's not genetic, then it would seem that environmental conditions would play a role, which would include things like upbringing.

Show evidence that allowing gay marriage or homosexual adoption affects sexual orientation. Until you can do that you're just talking out your ass.

Likewise in this case.

No.

[Aeson]

We aren't just talking about sexual orientation. We're talking about all homosexual acts, isn't that correct. I'm sure a child that is oriented towards homosexuality is likely to engage in it, but we're talking about the others as well. There's many bi-sexuals, for example.

If Ellestar was just worried about homosexual acts he wouldn't be watching gay porn.

Only 1-30 smokers ever have serious health problems resulting from smoking. How many people have serious health problems resulting from sodomy? Is there a difference?

According to the CDC 480,000 people in the US die each year due to smoking related diseases. I'm just guessing the number of deaths from sodomy is slightly lower at least.

[Kidlicious]

If Ellestar was just worried about homosexual acts he wouldn't be watching gay porn.



According to the CDC 480,000 people in the US die each year due to smoking related diseases. I'm just guessing the number of deaths from sodomy is slightly lower at least.

The CDC? Good grief. Did you read the dang thing?

"•Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is nearly one in five deaths.1,2,3"

Bull****.

[Aeson]

Well, do you have a source on how many deaths smoking causes vs how many deaths sodomy causes? I mean, it's not ABSURDLY OBVIOUS WHICH ONE CAUSES ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE DEATHS, but we should at least have a source ...

[Kidlicious]

Well, do you have a source on how many deaths smoking causes vs how many deaths sodomy causes? I mean, it's not ABSURDLY OBVIOUS WHICH ONE CAUSES ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE DEATHS, but we should at least have a source ...

I can site sources, but I don't know how reliable they are. No one really cares about people exaggerating the dangers of smoking, and no PC organization is going to publish accurate statistics and the health risks of sodomy. But it is reported that smoking decreases your life expectancy by 2 to 10 years, and sodomy reduces your life expectancy by 8 to 20 years.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” – more than twice that of smoking.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/61856/

[Kidlicious]

dp

[Ellestar]

If Ellestar was just worried about homosexual acts he wouldn't be watching gay porn.

I wouldn't say i'm "watching" it. I looked, like, twice. Same dicks as in a normal porn, i have one myself. Nothing interesting.

And by the way, given that i openly said about it on a forum, any person with brains can guess that i don't care if it's known (because it's a non-issue). So by making a third jab at me in 4 posts only makes you more and more of an idiot. That basically proves that you think homosexual relations are something not normal even more than me.

And to answer your question, yes, i consider homosexual acts a problem. And i already explained why - such acts between friends are likely to become a "friends with benefits" same-sex relationship that will prevent people from looking for a normal relationship.

Well, that's the core issue, no? If it's not genetic, then it would seem that environmental conditions would play a role, which would include things like upbringing.

See, Aeson? Smart people actually understand what i'm talking about. And you, Aeson, can only whine "liar, liar!"

[Aeson]

Congratulating yourself that "smart people" like Ben Kenobi are making the exact same fallacy as you is pretty funny

[Aeson]

And by the way, given that i openly said about it on a forum, any person with brains can guess that i don't care if it's known (because it's a non-issue). So by making a third jab at me in 4 posts only makes you more and more of an idiot. That basically proves that you think homosexual relations are something not normal even more than me.

There's nothing wrong with watching gay porn, or being gay, or fixating on the dicks in heterosexual porn ... but there is something hilarious about wanting to ban "gay propaganda" and watching gay porn and fixating on the dicks in heterosexual porn.