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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests
Collapse
X
-
Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
-
Originally posted by Ellestar View PostSo 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 think your standing has a higher moral ground.
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 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.
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.
Again that "free speech" mantra. There are enough of examples when other issues take priority over free speech, so it's not an argument.
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.
And yeah, harems actually make sense, unlike homosexuality.
"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.
It's easy enough to deny adoptions.
And i wouldn't want to take their own children away from homosexual families, that's too extreme.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostLogically 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?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostLogically 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.
What would be so different here?
Also there is a huge body of evidence that smoking is harmful to an individual.
Comment
-
I'm pointing out there is no evidence that they are changing sexual orientation.
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.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostSexual orientation isn't just a habit or a choice.
Also there is a huge body of evidence that smoking is harmful to an individual.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostWhat, in this case, makes it different from smoking?
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.
Likewise in this case.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious View PostWe 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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostIf 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.
"•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****.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostWell, 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 ...
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.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostIf Ellestar was just worried about homosexual acts he wouldn't be watching gay porn.
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.
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View PostWell, 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.Knowledge is Power
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ellestar View PostAnd 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.
Comment
Comment