PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Laughingly...

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what the hell kind of message board is this!? YouDebate.com, my ass..! more like Heteroman Spreads Puerile Bigotry and Lies Like a Four-Year-Old While Everyone Laughs at Him.com.

I was raised in a loving atmosphere that never instilled in me the sense of homophobia which appears to be fed to people like (you know who) with their mother's milk. therefore, I find it difficult to understand the platform most homophobes stand on. ancient misogynist philosophers bore me almost as much as bible-babble, and that's all I ever seemed to read or hear about. I thought perhaps here I would find some people with new, valid opinions worth hearing and considering, not tiresome, re-hashed material that is so threadbare it is transparent.

anyway, I thank you all for a round of laughs. as much as I disapprove attacking a child and a woman (why is she a slut? for having sex out of marriage? are you calling all gays sluts, then, since we can't legally marry?), I understand the provocations. this is a sad world we live in, isn't it.

nrdchilde
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:26 AM on April 15, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me offer you this then, with all religious "bible bable" as you call it aside. My argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. The laws of nature state that all creatures are born with the desire to procreate. Since homosexuals cannot possibly procreate (without inter-gender sex) they break this primary rule of nature. This being said, homosexuality cannot be genetic, as it could not possibly have been passed on, even as a recessive gene. It is purely a choice, which is your right to make. But just as male-female sex isn't a turn on to you, male-male/female-female sex isn't a turn on to straight people. I myself have never been a fan of Public Displays of Effection by either side, and do my best to keep my private life just that, MINE.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 11:00 PM on April 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

natural does not equal genetic, as you imply. a cold is a natural phenomenon, though not a genetic disease (not that I am suggesting homosexuality is a virus). that aside, homosexuality could easily be natural- a mutation that occurs in nature to control population growth, or promote inter-species family bonding.

you suggest that the laws of nature state that all creatures are born with the desire to procreate. homosexuals can't procreate with their mate, but that does not mean they don't feel the desire to. conversely, many heterosexuals don't feel a drive to procreate. now, which is it that makes one 'natural', as you call it? the desire or the ability? whichever you decide, your decision will reflect on heterosexuals. my aunt and uncle are heterosexual, but do not want children. my cousin is heterosexual, but is sterile and cannot have children. which of them is as 'unnatural' as a homosexual?

lastly, homosexuals are not fighting for the right to have sex in public, or whatever you mean by 'public displays of affection'. I don't hold my gf's hand in public to 'turn on' other lesbians, so I'm not sure what your point is. I believe I am as human as the next hetero, contribute just as much to society, and therefore believe I should have equal rights. I will have sex in my private home, but I should not have to hide my affection for my gf in public for fear of being hurt or shouted at.

nrdchilde
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:40 PM on May 4, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it's a genetic mutation, which it could entirely be, is one way or the other, unproven. A cold is a natural phenomenon. So is schitzophrenia, pyschosis and the entire list of phobias. (Please don't understand that as me saying homosexuals are pyschotic, that's obviously not my point). I'm not sure what "inter-speicies family bonding" means so I'll give you a chance to explain it, but there is no over population problem. If you took all the people in the world, broke them down into units of four and gave each "family" an acre of land in Texas you still wouldn't fill the state. Over population is a pinky leftist enviromental wacko idea, it can be discarded as a serious problem at any point.

homosexuals can't procreate with their mate, but that does not mean they don't feel the desire to.

do you feel any desire to be inseminated by a male penis? I'm gonna go ahead and guess not. That is what procreation entails, a male inseminating a female. You cannot define it as a male inseminating another male, and it's obviously impossible for a female to inseminate anything at all.

many heterosexuals don't feel a drive to procreate.

Unless you have some statistics on this, I'm going to blatently refute it. I would be willing to guess that the percentage of heterosexuals in the world who don't want kids are probably 2% or less. That hardly constitutes "many."

By public displays of affection, I mean kissing, fondling, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't have equal rights. You have every right, in the country of the united states, to do pretty much whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Again, what you do behind closed doors is your own peragotive. If you wanna endulge in animal sacrafice in your own home, I guess that's up to you (so long as you don't sacrafice anyone else's pet). Again that's an extreme example. And I'd be as disgusted by watching two straight people make out on the steet as two gay people.




-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 04:20 AM on May 5, 2003 | IP
Robby

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This idea that homosexuality is not natural, because it's anti-procreation is absurd.

Some men/women are born un-able to have kids, or "procreate".

That, in of itself does not make them freaks.  Just different.

-Robby


-------
** Choose to love and accept gay people, dont choose the corrupt lifestyle of hating them**
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 01:41 AM on June 2, 2003 | IP
nrdchilde

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I apologise for taking so long to reply. I have been on vacation.

first of all, I don't think we'll ever agree on the 'it's natural' argument. by saying it is a natural phenomenon, I mean that it occurs spontaneously- not brought about by negative forces or influences (like sexual abuse or the influence of satan). however, as you said, the same may be said of schizophrenia and other mental disorders. keep in mind, though, that the APA officially removed homosexuality from the official list of mental and emotional disorders in 1973.

as for my reference to homosexuality promoting family bonding- this is just an example off the top of my head, but think of a lion's pride, filled with females and a single male who is often absent. a relationship between two females could be strengthened through sexual acts, encouraging one to protect the other's offspring, etc.

I won't even get into the 'pinky leftist environmental wacko' idea of over-population. I suggest, however, that you consider the issue in terms of resources, and not just square acreage.

now for your points concerning procreation: first of all, the desire to procreate does not equate the desire to have heterosexual sex, but the desire to have and raise a baby. my wanting or not wanting a penis in my vagina as sexual stimulation really does not relate at all to my desire to procreate- if I wanted to have a baby, and in 5 years or so, I may just- I'd either pay to have it done by a doctor, or find a man willing to impregnate me naturally.

also, I found some statistics for you on childless couples. "Of women ages 40 to 44 years old, near the end of their childbearing years, 19 percent are childless, the U.S. Census Bureau reports." hardly 2% or less, I'd say! but even if it WERE 2%, it still wouldn't matter. the ability to have children is not what justifies a relationship in america. if that were so, then childless and sterile couples would be in the same situation as homosexuals. Men and women would be required to pass fertility tests before being allowed to marry. infertile people would hold pride marches, and fertile people would stand around and shout things like "GOD HATES CHILDLESS FREAKS!"

I agree with you that most public displays of affection are pretty uncouth,  but I think you, as a hetero, take your freedom for granted, and do not understand what it is like to be on the other side. for instance, I don't find linking arms european-style a disgusting form of PDA, yet you would not believe how many times I've been yelled at and harassed for doing just that with my girlfriend. (FAGS, LESBIANS, YOU GUYS ARE SICK, etc.) and why should this totally harmless behaviour be kept behind closed doors, as if it were some sort of disgusting, twisted act comparable to sacrificing animals? (which, by the way, is illegal and is not within your rights to do even inside your own home). no one can live a regular lifestyle if one of the most important things in it, a life partner, has to be kept hidden and secret. think of the implications! every office party you're invited to your partner cannot attend. no pictures of your loved one and your children on your desk. family parties become bizarre performances in which the slightest lapse- a lingering touch, an unconscious caress, a too-long gaze, could give you away. could anyone sustain a long-term relationship this way? coming out is not something gay people do to disgust heterosexuals or to recruit- we do it because we have to.



-------
nrd-childe
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:17 AM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about the "its natural argument."  I agree that in a primitive stage of evolution, homosexuality would be a crux, but we are sufficiently evolved past the need for bare survival that as a society we now focus on many other pursuits that make us happy or confortable as opposed to a simply desire to survive.  Some people are predisposesed for whatever reason be it nature or nurture to like to do certain things, some men like hunting, or golf, or other men.  I believe that homosexulaity is a matter of preference in that the need for survival is not paramount but the need for happiness is therefore some people (for whatever reason) do things that "aren't natural," but are personally pleasing.  But on the other side I agree wholeheartedly with stormcrow that you have the right to do what you want in the privacy of your own home whether I agree with it or not.  But also homophobia is sufficiently set in in that it isn't going anywhere any time soon so nrdchilde as annoying as those comments are it will take some time for them to go away.

Caldave
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:14 PM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Rage

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"-but there is no over population problem. If you took all the people in the world, broke them down into units of four and gave each "family" an acre of land in Texas you still wouldn't fill the state. Over population is a pinky leftist enviromental wacko idea, it can be discarded as a serious problem at any point. "
- StormCrow

Wow, you've got some serious math problems, there, dude.  You were just guessing, hu?  *shakes head*  Here.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

as of now, it reads 6.39 billion as the world population.  

If you search on google "square mile to acres" their calculator gives you an answer of 640.  Now, take that, multiply it by the square mileage of Texas (in area excluding water).  You'll get 167,624,960 acres.

http://www.50states.com/texas.htm

this site is for reference of the texas square mileage.

Now, take the world population of 6.39 billion and divide it by 4.  you get.. 1,597,500,000.  Oh, look.. that's not even close to the 167,624,960 that you'd need for you to have been correct.  It's actually only about a ninth of the area needed to make that statement correct.  Now, you could fit everyone in groups of four onto an acrea piece in the entire US.. that's easy.  Just not texas.  Just thought I'd refute that one, as no one else bothered to.

Also.. I may as wel argue this one too.. you seem to think there is no overpopulation issue.  What is your definition of overpopulation? Because by dictionary.com definitions of it, it is
"Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration."

Now, I dunno about you, but I definitely think that's already been proven as fact to be happening.  Why else would we have to clear cut forests on a huge scale, if not to make room for people and land for growing food for the (duh) overpopulated species of man?  You're weird.  You're either in denial, ignorant, or perhaps brainwashed with propaganda made by corporations and other wealthy organizations who benefit by not caring about the environment, and who in turn try and make other people think there is no danger so they can go about their self-destructive lifestyles.

*whew*  whatta mouthful.  Alright.. let's see what you say to that.


-------
"My responsiblity to this earth to be a living creature and do no harm to the planet is greater than all you self-dillusions, denial, and ignorance put together." - Rage
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:36 AM on January 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey,  Rage

Most users are debating at new Gay Rights forumnow.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:12 AM on January 5, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.