Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Will you bash Down's syndrome too?

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:36:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.
Haha, what the hell are you talking about?
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:40:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:36:57 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.
Haha, what the hell are you talking about?

Think about it fam
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:42:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:40:39 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:36:57 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.
Haha, what the hell are you talking about?

Think about it fam
No reason, it's nonsense.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:42:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:42:29 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:40:39 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:36:57 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.
Haha, what the hell are you talking about?

Think about it fam
No reason, it's nonsense.

So you did think about it?
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:17:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

I'm an atheist and reading this statement made me want to read a bible for guidance.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.
Meh!
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:42:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

Why is it that so many people can only speak of "mindless" evolution as if it had a mind? Evolution "chose" to do away with homosexuals. Does evolution have tactical and strategic objectives? Is it omniscient? It doesn't really matter to me why homosexuals are, merely that THEY ARE, and as they are humans just as I then I should treat them as humans just as I am.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 4:48:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.
So it's obvious you have at least half a brain. I noticed you didn't give another explanation why nature would evolve homosexuality in people if evolution wasn't sending the message that those peoples genetics shouldn't be reproduced or "procreated".
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 5:04:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 4:48:00 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.
So it's obvious you have at least half a brain. I noticed you didn't give another explanation why nature would evolve homosexuality in people if evolution wasn't sending the message that those peoples genetics shouldn't be reproduced or "procreated".

That sort of narrow-minded, half-witted ignorant, nonsense deserves no more comment.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 5:32:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 5:04:07 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:48:00 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.
So it's obvious you have at least half a brain. I noticed you didn't give another explanation why nature would evolve homosexuality in people if evolution wasn't sending the message that those peoples genetics shouldn't be reproduced or "procreated".

That sort of narrow-minded, half-witted ignorant, nonsense deserves no more comment.

Cop out
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.
Meh!
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 6:14:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.

Hetero fertilization*
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:08:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

Yes, but in terms of evolution, their genetics are still being passed on to the next generation. Does this make sense to you?

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.

Then you have made no argument. Fine by me.
Meh!
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 8:08:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

Yes, but in terms of evolution, their genetics are still being passed on to the next generation. Does this make sense to you?

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.

Then you have made no argument. Fine by me.

Lol I did make an argument, but that wasn't one of them.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:14:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 8:10:43 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:08:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

Yes, but in terms of evolution, their genetics are still being passed on to the next generation. Does this make sense to you?

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.

Then you have made no argument. Fine by me.

Lol I did make an argument, but that wasn't one of them.

Yeah, doing the whole playing dumb/trolling thing doesn't work really well.
Meh!
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:23:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 8:14:07 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:10:43 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:08:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 6:14:16 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 5:38:27 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

Holy crap, do you not know what surrogacy and artificial insemination is?

"Why should we accept them?" You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural (Which is an extremely dumb argument).

If it makes you feel better, your position is becoming a minority and is diminishing.

Ommggggg, someone adopting a baby, or getting sperm from someone of the OPPOSITE sex, is not the two gay people producing the fetus. The former is the gay couple raising them, and the latter is hetero sex.

Yes, but in terms of evolution, their genetics are still being passed on to the next generation. Does this make sense to you?

"You honestly haven't given any reason to not accept them other than by saying its unnatural" You have to give an argument for why we should accept them. You have the burden of proof if you're asserting that they deserve acceptance.

And nowhere did I make the argument that they do not deserve acceptance because it's unnatural.

Then you have made no argument. Fine by me.

Lol I did make an argument, but that wasn't one of them.

Yeah, doing the whole playing dumb/trolling thing doesn't work really well.

Ok buddy
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 9:51:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Dude this isn't hard. A man and man having sex will not create a baby. A woman and a woman having sex does not create a baby.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 9:55:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 9:51:57 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Dude this isn't hard. A man and man having sex will not create a baby. A woman and a woman having sex does not create a baby.

You must have led a very sheltered life. A man (homo or heterosexual) having sex with a woman (again homo or heterosexual) can create babies.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 9:57:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 9:55:34 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:51:57 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Dude this isn't hard. A man and man having sex will not create a baby. A woman and a woman having sex does not create a baby.

You must have led a very sheltered life. A man (homo or heterosexual) having sex with a woman (again homo or heterosexual) can create babies.

Duddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I am saying that a baby can't be produced out of homosexual sex. Not hetero sex which is between a man and a woman, even if one of them is homosexual.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 10:05:16 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 9:57:02 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:55:34 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:51:57 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Dude this isn't hard. A man and man having sex will not create a baby. A woman and a woman having sex does not create a baby.

You must have led a very sheltered life. A man (homo or heterosexual) having sex with a woman (again homo or heterosexual) can create babies.

Duddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I am saying that a baby can't be produced out of homosexual sex. Not hetero sex which is between a man and a woman, even if one of them is homosexual.

So bye bye all those arguments about homosexuals being genetically incapable of passing on their genes.
SJM
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 10:18:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 10:05:16 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:57:02 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:55:34 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:51:57 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:17:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 9:08:30 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:58:15 AM, desmac wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:34:49 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 4:24:09 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:33:07 AM, SJM wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:49:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/17/2016 2:31:21 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/17/2016 1:53:56 AM, Jovian wrote:
Homosexuality is sometimes called a "disorder", and it is usually told that normalising this would evil. Then we have actual disorders like Down's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and autism. People with these disorders are indeed respected in society, and I can't believe the USA would be any different with that. These people are all being taught that they are normal, albeit with some slight differences which do not mean inferiority in some way. I can tell that since I have a sister who is a teacher specified on children with Asperger's syndrome, thus even I have experiences from this area.

If we invert "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder", then we get "X is a disorder, and thus it shouldn't be respected". Logic. Thus, someone who is saying homosexuality shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder has been saying any disorder shouldn't be respected. And as I've showed you, normalisation of actual disorders have already started. So when will you start demonising people with these disorders too?

"But homosexuality could be not reacted upon!" is not an accepted answer in this case. As I've showed you, "X shouldn't be respected because it's a disorder" = "X is a disorder and thus it shouldn't be respected".
Homosexuality by definition was specifically targeted by evolution to not reproduce...I.E.. their genetics are not beneficial to humanity so nature has ingrained in them, for the most part, to not reproduce.. Do you know any other reason why evolution would evolve the genetic disposition in people to not want to engage in sexual activity that may result in spreading their genetics to offspring?
Seems to me nature wants these genes kept in check and to not be a contributory factor to humanities gene pool.

"Homosexuality by definition"?? Get real; tell us where such a ridiculous definition comes from: "The Imbeciles Dictionary for Dummies"?
That sort of comment is 100% wrong and an insult to anyone with half a brain.

Lol is not true that gays are genetically unable to reproduce without other gays, no right? That's because of their nature (biological functions) doesn't allow for same sex reproduction. Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, therefore by definition, not procreative. Like a body's immune system gets stronger every time to fight off illnesses through evolution, evolution tries to stop the gay disease by not making them unable to reproduce so that the immune system (The universe) can get rid of it.

In nature homosexuals wouldn't reproduce offspring, because of this the genes for homosexuality wouldn't be passed down.

Nothing like an illness or disease at all, you have a barely passable understanding of evolution.

Honestly, evolution doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore, since due to modern technology they can have children of their own, you should grow up and accept it.

The last thing you said was the only valid statement, but not even a good one. Homosexuals can't produce children, if so then explain it. Now if you're saying that they can adopt children, therefore we should grow up and accept it, why? Why does that warrant our acceptance?

If you honestly believe that homosexuals are genetically incapable of reproducing sexually with members of the opposite sex, I suggest you attend some junior school sex ed classes. You may learn something.

I mean same sex, sex with each other. I thought that was apparent.

Are you claiming that no homosexual man or woman is genetically incapable of having children with a member of the opposite sex by means of sexual intercourse?

Boy, are you in for a surprise.

Dude this isn't hard. A man and man having sex will not create a baby. A woman and a woman having sex does not create a baby.

You must have led a very sheltered life. A man (homo or heterosexual) having sex with a woman (again homo or heterosexual) can create babies.

Duddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I am saying that a baby can't be produced out of homosexual sex. Not hetero sex which is between a man and a woman, even if one of them is homosexual.

So bye bye all those arguments about homosexuals being genetically incapable of passing on their genes.

I never said that they were incapable of passing on their genes, that was skip, my point was that nature made homosexuals not able to reproduce with each other so that children aren't the products of homosexual sex, but that hetero sex creates children because it's what nature intended.
Hitler- If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Stalin- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Machiavelli- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Ivan the Terrible- "I will not see the destruction of the Christian converts who are loyal to me, and to my last breath I will fight for the Orthodox faith