biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[Lon]

Hello, Angel4Truth - If there was a cure for aids, would homosexuality suddenly become less wrong?

It isn't just aids, it is all sexually transmitted diseases and colon diseases. It is an incredibly higher suicide rate. It is 500x's the domestic violence, sexual and abuse.

If you are asking about spiritual problems, yes that too, but even an atheist can relate to actuals that they are concerned about, or should be. Someone here said "what about loving couples?" Only 1% of homosexuals have been married since the law passed. We are not bigots for looking at and actually thinking about statistics. Facts don't lie. They can't.

 

[glassjester]

It isn't just aids, it is all sexually transmitted diseases and colon diseases. It is an incredibly higher suicide rate. It is 500x's the domestic violence, sexual and abuse.

If you are asking about spiritual problems, yes that too, but even an atheist can relate to actuals that they are concerned about, or should be. Someone here said "what about loving couples?" Only 1% of homosexuals have been married since the law passed. We are not bigots for looking at and actually thinking about statistics. Facts don't lie. They can't.

Yes. You and I are on the same side of this issue; that is certain.

I do not think the AIDS argument is valid, however. Selaphiel is right in demanding an argument against homosexuality, qua homosexuality.

 

[quip]

No, they could just abort "it."

...couldn't they?

And what about homosexual incestuous couples? Do they deserve "marriage equality," having absolutely zero risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disorder?

Run out of objections?

 

[quip]

More red herring, i wasnt discussing promiscuity, that was your strawman.

You've got some holes to fill:

If not the sex act, how else is HIV contracted. Perhaps, being homo means they're defacto intravenous drug users; perhaps they're simply smote by god.

What's your explanation for heteros' contracting HIV?

 

[ok doser]

Yes. You and I are on the same side of this issue; that is certain.

I do not think the AIDS argument is valid, however. Selaphiel is right in demanding an argument against homosexuality, qua homosexuality.

it's a perversion of normal sexuality - iirc, trad made a very good argument to that, from a debate/philosophical reasoning standpoint

 

[quip]

He's your God too quip


you'll learn that soon enough

He's neither of our god....you'll learn that soon enough.

 

[glassjester]

Run out of objections?

What's your objection to "marriage equality" for incestuous couples?

You can't base it on risk of genetic disorders, because (I assume) you are not against non-incestuous couples with hereditary disorders. Nor (again, I assume) are you of the opinion that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction.

So, in the zeitgeist of the thread, what is your objection to incest qua incest?

 

[quip]

Yeah, but you, by admission from Houseman, are a stranger and afraid... It really makes it your problem. What is it? I've already told you, you value humanity and human life MUCH less than I do. You are a self-centered caricature of an actual human being, even by humanism standards. Among the divine? Much more so. You are MEANT to be of the divine, quip. Your satisfaction with subpar is ever the actual problem. It is you, quip.

You really go out of your way to exalt yourself...a little too much to convince anyone, except perhaps yourself.

You need to humble. Wasn't Jesus big on humility?

 

[quip]

What's your objection to "marriage equality" for incestuous couples?

You can't base it on risk of genetic disorders, because (I assume) you are not against non-incestuous couples with hereditary disorders. Nor (again, I assume) are you of the opinion that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction.

So, in the zeitgeist of the thread, what is your objection to incest qua incest?

It seems your well has run dry.

Do you have an objection with "marriage equality" for the same sex? If so why?

 

[glassjester]

it's a perversion of normal sexuality - iirc, trad made a very good argument to that, from a debate/philosophical reasoning standpoint

Yes, of course it is. Just like incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. But pro-homosexuals don't care about that. To the moral relativist, there is no "normal," therefore there is no "perversion."

I haven't seen any posts by Traditio, lately.

 

[quip]

Yes, of course it is. Just like incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. But pro-homosexuals don't care about that. To the moral relativist, there is no "normal," therefore there is no "perversion."

I haven't seen any posts by Traditio, lately.

Is the Kamasutra "normal" to you jester or is it perverse?

 

[ok doser]

Yes, of course it is. Just like incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. But pro-homosexuals don't care about that. To the moral relativist, there is no "normal," therefore there is no "perversion."

I haven't seen any posts by Traditio, lately.

no, he flamed out into racistland and hasn't been back

 

[glassjester]

It seems your well has run dry.

Do you have an objection with "marriage equality" for the same sex? If so why?

It just doesn't make any sense. What do you suppose is the purpose of marriage?

You still have not given an argument against incestuous marriage, per se. Only against incestuous procreation. So would you vote against a law granting incestuous couples the right to marry? If so, why?

 

[glassjester]

Is the Kamasutra "normal" to you jester or is it perverse?

I don't know. I haven't read it.

 

[quip]

It just doesn't make any sense. What do you suppose is the purpose of marriage?

Two individuals who love one another want to bond together for life.

What doesn't make sense about that?

 

[quip]

I don't know. I haven't read it.

Here's a snippet.

Normal or perverse?

 

[glassjester]

no, he flamed out into racistland and hasn't been back

Yes, I recall his posts becoming increasingly racist maybe a year, or so, ago. Was he banned?

 

[glassjester]

Two individuals who love one another want to bond together for life.

What doesn't make sense about that?

And it's not necessarily sexual or procreative. Is that right?

 

[quip]

And it's not necessarily sexual or procreative. Is that right?

They both can play a part.

Why do you ask?

 

[glassjester]

They both can play a part.

Why do you ask?

I am trying to understand your definition of marriage, and how it includes homosexuals, but excludes certain other relationships, which I would consider perverse.

"Two individuals who love each other and want to bond for life."

Why couldn't that include incestuous couples?
Or why not 3 individuals, instead of 2?
What about a couple who doesn't believe marriage is for life? Are you against their right to marry?