Give me some arguments why homosexuality is wrong and should be declared illegal.

[MrPickins]

The "naturalness" of homosexuality is based on pederasty, that is, sexual relation between an adult and a teen, this is the most sought sexual relation by adults homosexuals, this is not obvious because such relations were forbidden for a long time but just ask a gay if he prefer a 16 year old or a 30 year old as sexual partner and you ll get the real picture, these people are sexual predators and deviants.

Oooook.

 

[soulcougher73]

So what's your rebuttal?

That was my rebuttal. That your responce was full of shit. If you want more. I think gay marriage should be legal just the same as hetero marriages with all the same rights, etc. What 2 people do is no business of mine. But marriage is not about procreation at all. There are tons of kids out there from marriageless homes, single moms etc. All it takes to procreate is male/female sex or the medical equiivalant. You are trying to lump procreation into something that doesnt require it as a reason to deny some people rights.

 

[brycejones]

You are worse than they are. This thread is not about Pederasty. It is about consenting Adults and would comprise the Majority of the Homosexual community. You are also conflating Age of Consent issues to where they don't belong.

I just assumed Abwx was trolling or mentally disabled.

 

[CitizenKain]

So what's your rebuttal?

Should we attach fines to parents that have children with any genetic disorders?

 

[Retro Rob]

So what you're saying is that you're viewing animal behavior from a human perspective and substituting human words and experiences.

Do animals call themselves "gay" or "homosexual"?

Please, answer the question.

*Crickets*

lol

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

just noticing that toaster-boy and toothless hiker are notoriously absent from a thread that should have their homo-alarms ringing off the wall.

Oh, and there are no legal arguments at all as to why homosexual behavior should be deemed as illegal. Plenty of religious dogma to throw around, but no secular reasons to justify making it illegal, ironically a few states do have laws in the books against it

Alabama (surprise, surprise)
In Alabama, state law dictates that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle:
(c) Course materials and instruction that relate to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include all of the following elements: [...]
(8) An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.
This is a reference to Alabama’s “sodomy law” criminalizing gay sex. This law has been unenforceable since the Supreme Court abolished sodomy laws in its 2003 ruling Lawrence v. Texas, but it remains on the books, as does the protocol to teach about it.

Arizona
According to Arizona law, not only is there nothing positive about being gay, there is no safe way to have gay sex:
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.
The law dictates the promotion of abstinence, but ironically also seeks to “dispel myths regarding transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.” Apparently myths about the risks of gay sex are still acceptable.

Louisiana (another shocker )
Louisiana has a law censoring homosexuality in sex education, but it only applies to “any sexually explicit materials depicting male or female homosexual activity.” Given the law’s emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage and the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, non-pictorial discussions of homosexuality could probably be considered violations as well.

Mississippi (color me completely surprised )
Mississippi law also refers back to its unenforceable sodomy law, dismissing the possibility that there is any kind of gay sex that is safe, appropriate, or legal:
(1) Abstinence education shall be the state standard for any sex-related education taught in the public schools. For purposes of this section, abstinence education includes any type of instruction or program which, at an appropriate age: [...]
(e) Teaches the current state law related to sexual conduct, including forcible rape, statutory rape, paternity establishment, child support and homosexual activity; and
(f) Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse.

North Carolina
Like Arizona, North Carolina law implies that gay sex is inherently unhealthy:
e. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

Oklahoma
Oklahoma’s law focuses specifically on preventing the transmission of the “AIDS virus” (HIV), claiming that “homosexual activity” is among the causes primarily responsible for contact with it:
D. AIDS prevention education shall specifically teach students that:
1. engaging in homosexual activity, promiscuous sexual activity, intravenous drug use or contact with contaminated blood products is now known to be primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus;
2. avoiding the activities specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection is the only method of preventing the spread of the virus;
The distinction between “homosexuality activity” and “promiscuous sexual activity” implies that there is no kind of homosexual activity that is not promiscuous.

South Carolina
In South Carolina, gay people only exist when it comes to explaining sexually transmitted diseases:
(5) The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases.

Tejas ("I don't see no horns on you")
Even though it was Texas’s sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down over 10 years ago, that law is still part of the state’s sex education policy:
(b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must:
(1) emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard in terms of public health and the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies; and
(2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.


Soon enough these people that enforce, support these archaic, inane laws will be dead, and the new, more enlightened generation will eventually change them for the better of all.

 

[Fern]

So what you're saying is that you're viewing animal behavior from a human perspective and substituting human words and experiences.

You said you've seen hungry predators kill their prey. I do not consider killing prey to be "murder". Also, in most cases it's not even between the same species.

The instances to which I am referring having nothing to do with hunger/food and were between the same species.

If you require my posts not use "human words" please state so clearly the next time and I'll see what I can do. I may have to get a different keyboard though.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

So far it seems Procreation is the only non-Religious reason put forth against it. Even those proposing that seem to undermine their arguments by conceding that not all Straight Marriages Procreate or can Procreate, yet they don't oppose those Marriages. Which seems to indicate conflicting intentions towards the subject.

The "Natural" argument almost seems to meet the criteria, but it carries with it the stench of a Woo view of what Nature is or argumentum ad populum. It also excludes applying that argument to other issues, such as Age of Consent and other issues.

 

[Abwx]

We're just sticking our human experience on them the same way I am with saying they "murder".

When killing the offsprings of a female to get her have sexual intercourse they murder, call it the way you want, it s not about food, it s about genetics, but now we can assume that it s a natural laws, that there are no human laws that are more than norms, so we should as well allow for a man to kill babies that are not his, why not after all, it s as natural if not more than homosexuality...

 

[soulcougher73]

When killing the offsprings of a female to get her have sexual intercourse they murder, call it the way you want, it s not about food, it s about genetics, but now we can assume that it s a natural laws, that there are no human laws that are more than norms, so we should as well allow for a man to kill babies that are not his, why not after all, it s as natural if not more than homosexuality...

So now you want us to kill babies as its only natural? Do you even know what you are arguing against?

 

[alzan]

Do you think animals refer to themselves as "gay" or "homosexual", yet, we call that "homosexual" behavior? Do animals fight with homosexual feelings, deny them, then finally accept what they are later on in life?

Really, all I have to do is turn your fallacious reasoning back on to you to expose your faulty logic.

You keep applying human terms and experiences to animals; I'm not sure why.

 

[alzan]

Do animals call themselves "gay" or "homosexual"?

Please, answer the question.

I've never talked with one. Have you?

*Crickets*

lol

Patience of a boiling teakettle.

I don't answer emails, texts or forum posts while driving. Do you?

So basically this boils down whether we as humans are capable of detailed and intricate conversations with animals or vice versa. Yes, applying the human term homosexual to animal behavior is incorrect; it then follows that applying human terms like "murder" "rape" and "incest" to animal behavior is also wrong. Correct?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just because straight marriages don't always produce children doesn't mean they aren't far and away the most likely to do so. Society doesn't need to expend money and effort to strictly enforce that childless couples don't marry. Some couples are infertile and don't know it. Others think they are but aren't. For society, the cost outweighs the benefit.

So your argument is that we should give government benefits to marriage specifically because the raising of children is in the best interest of society, but that rather than give these benefits out based on which couples actually have children, we should base it on which couples are statistically more likely to have children based solely on the criteria of sexuality (without taking into account age or guaranteed infertility, for example)? That's just illogical. You can't claim to be in favor of a benefit for couples with children, then assign the benefit based on criteria that don't actually determine whether or not the couple has children, and certainly not refuse it to couples who demonstrably do have children just because they don't meet your arbitrary requirement regarding their sexual orientation.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Have you ever seen a Hornet raze a beehive? That's some of the most outstanding displays of home invasion, and mass, wanton genocide.

Hornets and bees are different species, so it's not really genocide, unless you consider something like commercial fishing to be genocide (which reasonable people don't). I love it when people come up with these examples from nature to compare to human on human behavior, and they always have a lion eating a gazelle or something that's not a good comparison specifically because it is not intra-species. It's like they think the world consists of two species; humans and EVERYTHING else. Why should a hornet care about a bee any more than we care about a tuna?

 

[alzan]

You said you've seen hungry predators kill their prey. I do not consider killing prey to be "murder". Also, in most cases it's not even between the same species.

The instances to which I am referring having nothing to do with hunger/food and were between the same species.

If you require my posts not use "human words" please state so clearly the next time and I'll see what I can do. I may to get a different keyboard though.

Fern

So you were reading the animals mind when it committed this act which you refer to as murder and amazingly enough the animal was thinking of the exact same word?

Amazing!

 

[sandorski]

Hornets and bees are different species, so it's not really genocide, unless you consider something like commercial fishing to be genocide (which reasonable people don't). I love it when people come up with these examples from nature to compare to human on human behavior, and they always have a lion eating a gazelle or something that's not a good comparison specifically because it is not intra-species. It's like they think the world consists of two species; humans and EVERYTHING else. Why should a hornet care about a bee any more than we care about a tuna?

I think there are some examples of Same Specie killing/murder.

 

[alzan]

@Atreus21

Still waiting for marriages that have not produced children or marriages where the partners have no intention of producing children to be declared illegal and for the marriage police come a-knockin' at doors to arrest all involved.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think there are some examples of Same Specie killing/murder.

I believe Bonobo chimps are guilty of this, and probably other apes and primates as well.

 

[sandorski]

I believe Bonobo chimps are guilty of this, and probably other apes and primates as well.

Some of those for sure, although it's considered to be quite rare and often disputes over territory. Which all seems expected, as they are so closely related to us.

Another example would be Blackwidow spiders.

 

[alzan]

I believe Bonobo chimps are guilty of this, and probably other apes and primates as well.

Interesting. Found this article on it: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081013-bonobos-attack-missions.html

I'm not entirely convinced it's murder, though; neither are the researchers. At this point it seems to be part of hunting.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

"Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees"
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276

 

[JEDIYoda]

Being gay must not be illegal but marriage yes because this amount to ask rights based on one s sexuality, at this point one can ask to marry with his dog or cat, hey, why not, zoophilia existed perhaps even before homosexuality...

as usual you have went over the deep end in the area we call "WTF!!!!"

 

[JEDIYoda]

Only people who are supposed to have babies.

Mariage is a legal act by wich a man and a woman are granted some rights as a mean to ease a family s life, what have the gays to do with such a case.?.

Are they going to have babies.?
No, all they wants are the rights granted to families, that is inheritage and social security benefits mainly, that s all for the money and nothing else.

In short sexuality has replaced will to make babies as the fundamental of mariage and this is where things are going wrong, one cant ask rights based on his sexuality, as said why not granting the same rights to zoophiles if sexuality is what define mariage.?

Huh?? Speake engrish dude!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Companionship doesnt need a formal legal paper, if it was for love they wouldnt ask for rights that are normaly granted to families and that are actualy money related.

The case of your mother is vastly different, she s a woman and a there s woman that cant live alone, it s not because she s 66 that her feminine nature will change, to prove your love to a woman you ll often have to marry her, such is the feminine nature, and this has nothing to do with money.

people..do you get the feel Abwx is foaming at the mouth......

 

[JEDIYoda]

Nature says that a lot of animals do not know what is their own sexuality before learning from their siblings, particularly it has been proved that young penguins have no knowledge of how to perform reproduction and that they are trying all possible things including homosexuality, but that last only the time needed for learning, so in a way their homosexuality has it source in ignorance but certainly not in a deliberate preference.

huh????