Board index › Age/Gender related discussions › LGBT Discussion

An Open Question To Anti-Gays: What Is Wrong With It?

Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Azagthoth
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 5:22 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Hrm....

Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth all joined on Oct. 20, 2011. And the first posts they make are either bashing Jews, homosexuals, women, or Aspies.

I wonder what that implies.......

Free hint: I wouldn't waste my time "debating".......goblins. Just sayin'.

:wink:


I didn't bash Jews, women, or Aspies (I am one; read my profile). Don't spread disinformation.



Q-Tip
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 5:23 pm

Constructive criticism is always positive in that everyone has their faults.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

20 Oct 2011, 5:30 pm

Azagthoth wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Hrm....

Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth all joined on Oct. 20, 2011. And the first posts they make are either bashing Jews, homosexuals, women, or Aspies.

I wonder what that implies.......

Free hint: I wouldn't waste my time "debating".......goblins. Just sayin'.

:wink:


I didn't bash Jews, women, or Aspies (I am one; read my profile). Don't spread disinformation.


Oh, I would never spread "disinformation" about you, Q-tip.....I mean Defiler.......I mean Azagthoth.......or which ever of your personalities I'm currently addressing.

:lol:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 5:32 pm

Defiler wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Defiler wrote:
The scientific community would disagree with that, at least until they were pressured by the forces of political correctness (not science) to change their conclusion. Organisms exist to produce offspring, homosexuality prevents that. Thus it is a defect, though in itself, it's not a problematic one. HOWEVER, the other tendencies that do correlate with it are problematic.

your argument is completely empty. homosexual men and women are still capable of having biological children, which you seem to overlook - it is quite easy with modern science and surrogate parents. since they are capable of having their own children and often do, they are not defective at all by your own definition. you dug a bit of a hole with that argument.


If it wasn't for modern science and surrogate parents, they wouldn't be able to. In a state of nature, it is a defect. They're just bypassing it with modern science. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a defect. A person can have bad vision, and compensate for that via glasses. Doesn't change the fact that they still have a visual defect.

they're not bypassing anything - they are parenting children, which allows them to pass on their genes. how they do so is irrelevant because natural selection doesn't care. their genes are in fact staying in the gene pool, so there is nothing defective at all.

your argument fell apart back there, i am almost sorry to tell you.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

20 Oct 2011, 5:32 pm

Defiler wrote:
The scientific community would disagree with that, at least until they were pressured by the forces of political correctness (not science) to change their conclusion. Organisms exist to produce offspring, homosexuality prevents that. Thus it is a defect, though in itself, it's not a problematic one. HOWEVER, the other tendencies that do correlate with it are problematic.

Also, your second argument is faulty. Just because gays are movie stars, doctors, etc. doesn't mean they don't have a culturally corrosive effect as a whole. You're looking at it purely from a mechanical standpoint, which is only part of the picture. Also, I don't watch TV. It's garbage for the brain.

And no, not everyone is special. Don't be a narcissist.


First of all I am not an "organism" and I don't exist for the sole purpose of "producing offspring." I am a human, which means I have intelligence and free will, and I am not bound by any sort of biological determinism.

Second many homosexuals are parents (biological or adoptive) and sexuality has no bearing on fitness to raise a child. A despicable minority of parents abuse, neglect, or molest their children, but there is no evidence these crimes are motivated by one's sexual orientation.

Finally I can "shenanigans" on your "culturally corrosive" argument. Society is shaped by the individual influence of its members. Culture is constantly evolving and changing, and while it is often turbulent, overall, diversity makes us stronger. Those who profess "if we grant Group X equal rights then it will destroy our superior Group Y culture" are rarely remembered as heroes by subsequent generations.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 73,334
Location: Over there

20 Oct 2011, 5:35 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Oh, I would never spread "disinformation" about you, Q-tip.....I mean Defiler.......I mean Azagthoth.......or which ever of your personalities I'm currently addressing.
:lol:
It seems there's quite a mutual mas^H^H^H fan club going on:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4100569 ... t=#4100569


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

20 Oct 2011, 6:11 pm

Azagthoth wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
your argument is completely empty. homosexual men and women are still capable of having biological children, which you seem to overlook - it is quite easy with modern science and surrogate parents. since they are capable of having their own children and often do, they are not defective at all by your own definition. you dug a bit of a hole with that argument.
Surrogate... as in, the actual definition of that term? Why would you want to replace natural parents with something else? What does that accomplish for society?
Fnord wrote:
This is getting a little out of hand, pipples! Can we please try to make nice?
It's just a discussion. If you have a point to make, share your contention. Otherwise, I don't think you can offer anything to this discussion.

Who died and made you moderator?

For that matter, why are the moderators allowing gay-bashing and blatant homophobia to continue in this thread?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 6:13 pm

(individuals have been warned)


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,288
Location: Texas, unfortunately

20 Oct 2011, 6:36 pm

People in any free society have the right to live their lives as they see fit, provided that their actions have no adverse effect on others. I do not see how whom I prefer to have sexual relations with has any bearing on whether or not I will be a productive member of society. I'm a male who prefers to be sexually intimate with other men. That's it. I am just a typical everyday citizen like the rest of you.

Also, I'm sick of this "gays don't reproduce, therefore they're bad for society" BS. Neither do asexuals. Neither do nuns or catholic priests. So what? I don't have to reproduce to prove my worth to society. Besides, I'm sure the rest of our population will more than compensate for my decision to not have children, given the fact that our population is approaching seven billion.


_________________
What fresh hell is this?


Krokusfan88
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 6:39 pm

mushroo wrote:
First of all I am not an "organism" and I don't exist for the sole purpose of "producing offspring." I am a human, which means I have intelligence and free will, and I am not bound by any sort of biological determinism.


Human beings are but highly evolved organisms spanning millions of years of development through natural selection. We serve no inherent function to this planet but our own desire to exist, and reproduce. To deny this, is blatant disregard for the reality that made us all possible to exist.

Quote:
Second many homosexuals are parents (biological or adoptive) and sexuality has no bearing on fitness to raise a child. A despicable minority of parents abuse, neglect, or molest their children, but there is no evidence these crimes are motivated by one's sexual orientation.


False. Homosexual reproduction cannot be done so in nature as it takes genetic material from both male and female chromosomes to spawn. Therefore, only heterosexual coitus garners the ability to pass on parental lineage. Homosexuality itself, is the antithesis of evolution it seems.

Quote:
Finally I can "shenanigans" on your "culturally corrosive" argument. Society is shaped by the individual influence of its members. Culture is constantly evolving and changing, and while it is often turbulent, overall, diversity makes us stronger. Those who profess "if we grant Group X equal rights then it will destroy our superior Group Y culture" are rarely remembered as heroes by subsequent generations.


Society is shaped by popularity, whereas natural leaders and icons have been replaced by the corrupt, sweet talks voted/casted/gossiped into power by the inane masses. Through this, alienation of the individual becomes rampant, as society casts out all dissident voices who oppose it's indoctrination of globalism. Diversity is a failed concept that stems from globalism, in that all cultural standards are abandoned for the sake of not offending anyone. What kind of society is that?



Last edited by Krokusfan88 on 20 Oct 2011, 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:      

20 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Hrm... Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth all joined on Oct. 20, 2011. And the first posts they make are either bashing Jews, homosexuals, women, or Aspies. I wonder what that implies... Free hint: I wouldn't waste my time "debating"... goblins. Just sayin'. :wink:

I've heard of Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth, but this Hrm fellow doesn't show up on the membership list.

;)

Curiouser and curiouser ...


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 6:47 pm

Krokusfan88 wrote:
False. Homosexual reproduction cannot be done so in nature as it takes genetic material from both male and female chromosomes to spawn. Therefore, only heterosexual coitus garners the ability to pass on parental lineage. Homosexuality itself, is the antithesis of evolution it seems.

... except that homosexual people can, and do, parent children. regardless of who their partner is, each individual can pass on their own genetic information. they may choose not to do so, just like heterosexuals may make that choice. they have no biological restriction on continuing their lineage, and many do make the choice to become parents.

you must have a better argument than that one, as it doesn't hold up under a faint glance, much less intense scrutiny. :lol:


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Krokusfan88
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 6:53 pm

Fnord wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Hrm... Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth all joined on Oct. 20, 2011. And the first posts they make are either bashing Jews, homosexuals, women, or Aspies. I wonder what that implies... Free hint: I wouldn't waste my time "debating"... goblins. Just sayin'. :wink:

I've heard of Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth, but this Hrm fellow doesn't show up on the membership list.

;)

Curiouser and curiouser ...


You guys had to of hired an outside internet super-sleuth investigator here in Nerdlock Holmes. The jig is up! :P



mushroo
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 492

20 Oct 2011, 7:01 pm

Hi Defiler,

Krokusfan88 wrote:
Human beings are but highly evolved organisms spanning millions of years of development through natural selection. We serve no inherent function to this planet but our own desire to exist, and reproduce. To deny this, is blatant disregard for the reality that made us all possible to exist.


I'll have you not question my "reason to exist" thank you. :)

Krokusfan88 wrote:
False. Homosexual reproduction cannot be done so in nature as it takes genetic material from both male and female chromosomes to spawn. Therefore, only heterosexual coitus garners the ability to pass on parental lineage. Homosexuality itself, is the antithesis of evolution it seems.


DNA is only a small part of parenting. Many parents have raised children who are not biologically their own (whether through adoption, fostering, step-parenting, surrogacy, etc.) and conversely, many people do not ever have children for whatever reason yet are still valued members of society. All of these people, as well as "normal" heterosexual biological parents, are people and deserve equal rights.

Krokusfan88 wrote:
Society is shaped by popularity, whereas natural leaders and icons have been replaced by the corrupt, sweet talks voted/casted/gossiped into power by the inane masses. Through this, alienation of the individual becomes rampant, as society casts out all dissident voices who oppose it's indoctrination of globalism. Diversity is a failed concept that stems from globalism, in that all cultural standards are abandoned for the sake of not offending anyone. What kind of society is that?


I share some of your concerns about modern society. Nevertheless there is a hypocrisy in your lamentation that "society casts out all dissident voices" yet you are quick to cast aside your homosexual neighbors for a victimless "crime" they commit in the privacy of their own homes.



Krokusfan88
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 7:02 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Krokusfan88 wrote:
False. Homosexual reproduction cannot be done so in nature as it takes genetic material from both male and female chromosomes to spawn. Therefore, only heterosexual coitus garners the ability to pass on parental lineage. Homosexuality itself, is the antithesis of evolution it seems.

... except that homosexual people can, and do, parent children. regardless of who their partner is, each individual can pass on their own genetic information. they may choose not to do so, just like heterosexuals may make that choice. they have no biological restriction on continuing their lineage, and many do make the choice to become parents.

you must have a better argument than that one, as it doesn't hold up under a faint glance, much less intense scrutiny. :lol:


I never denied that. Homosexual couples in bane of traditional heterosexual couples, claim to naturally possess the same ability to reproduce... but can only be achieved through an intermediary of the opposing sex. Only passing on half of the couples genes. It would totally make for great talk-show television for us all to enjoy in the long run.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 7:06 pm

Krokusfan88 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Krokusfan88 wrote:
False. Homosexual reproduction cannot be done so in nature as it takes genetic material from both male and female chromosomes to spawn. Therefore, only heterosexual coitus garners the ability to pass on parental lineage. Homosexuality itself, is the antithesis of evolution it seems.

... except that homosexual people can, and do, parent children. regardless of who their partner is, each individual can pass on their own genetic information. they may choose not to do so, just like heterosexuals may make that choice. they have no biological restriction on continuing their lineage, and many do make the choice to become parents.

you must have a better argument than that one, as it doesn't hold up under a faint glance, much less intense scrutiny. :lol:


I never denied that. Homosexual couples in bane of traditional heterosexual couples, claim to naturally possess the same ability to reproduce... but can only be achieved through an intermediary of the opposing sex. Only passing on half of the couples genes. It would totally make for great talk-show television for us all to enjoy in the long run.

good, we are in agreement then; homosexual people are not biologically defective.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105