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

[JEDIYoda]

Tell people that a 30 year gay has the right to do sexual propositions to their 16 year old sons and that parents have no right to mess in his decision, then you ll hear that they didnt thought that they would have to be confronted to such a situation, heck, they thought that it would only fall on other people children..

Actualy all thoses laws are encouraged by sexual predators that are part of the ruling elite...

again you refuse to take your foot out of your mouth and just sit and learn from others.....
Instead you use those fallacious arguments such as --

Tell people that a 30 year gay has the right to do sexual propositions to their 16 year old sons....

Involking the those poor children argument is just BS!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Abwx View Post
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.

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.

Abwx lives in a world where he actually believes these things to be true......thus playing -- oh my the childreb card..lolol

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Consenting adults mean anything to you? Of your list you could marry the transexual (assuming they are of legal age), but the rest are off limits for a legal contract. Sorry..you can still fuck them though if you want.

I know you are mentally challenged, but consent is not something that is done with only "Yes, I consent to you fucking me" I'm sure in beastiality videos they have sheep going "baaaaaaah" means "nooooooo" right?

 

[Exophase]

Why is it wrong? Because it goes against everything nature intended, physically it shouldn't happen.

Do you not masturbate?

 

[shira]

A likely discussion point avoiding religious "talk" is in relation to survival of the species. If we argue that specie survival is paramount, then anything that interferes with that process would be immoral and could possibly be legislated.

There are (at least) two major flaws in this argument:
1) It assumes without foundation that legal homosexuality "interferes" with procreation. Or put another way, it assumes without foundation that if homosexuality were made illegal there would be an increase in procreation.
2) Even accepting for the sake of discussion that outlawing homosexuality would lead to an increase in procreation, this argument further assumes without foundation that an increase in procreation improves the chances for the survival of the human species. But it is clearly true that human overpopulation is a threat to the survival of the human speciess.

 

[soulcougher73]

I fell weird that jediyoda is attacking the same target

 

[Abwx]

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

Not at all but since everybody talk of homosexuality as being natural, wich i agree more or less, why not being completely naturals, to death if i can say so.

That said i d like to give the exemple of France, a nation quite "advanced" on thoses matters and tell people how everything began to end with homosexual mariages.

During the 70s there was a movement called FLIP, explicitely the Front for Liberation of Pedophilia, they were asking for "freedom" of sexual intercourse between adults and teens as well as sexual relations between parents and children (be sure that this will be the next "progress" in matter of "rights").

Those homosexuals were part of the intellectual elite and they became bold enough as to appear in TVs and explicitly telling stories of sexual relations they had with 10-12 year old children despite such acts and related public statements were forbidden by laws.

With time it became clear that a big part of the intellectual elite and establishment had such habits, the neo cons counter revolution of the 80s put an end to their public displayings and they became silent but were still powerfull enough, they just waited and started recently to advocate for homosexual mariages, these are the same that were promoting pedophilia 30 years ago that pushed the harder for homosexual mariage.

Officialising such relations wasnt done to ease the homosexuals life but just to further the real agenda wich is the one i mentioned above, that is, pederastic pedophilia and perents/children sexual relations, mark my words, it will take only a few decades for such practices to be legalized completely, pedophilia is already legal in Europe, a German or a British has just to go to Spain and he can have sexual relations with 13 years old girls and boys.

I fell weird that jediyoda is attacking the same target

Jedytrolla think that we are in a palestinian/israelis related thread.

 

[brycejones]

Not at all but since everybody talk of homosexuality as being natural, wich i agree more or less, why not being completely naturals, to death if i can say so.

That said i d like to give the exemple of France, a nation quite "advanced" on thoses matters and tell people how everything began to end with homosexual mariages.

During the 70s there was a movement called FLIP, explicitely the Front for Liberation of Pedophilia, they were asking for "freedom" of sexual intercourse between adults and teens as well as sexual relations between parents and children (be sure that this will be the next "progress" in matter of "rights").

Those homosexuals were part of the intellectual elite and they became bold enough as to appear in TVs and explicitly telling stories of sexual relations they had with 10-12 year old children despite such acts and related public statements were forbidden by laws.

With time it became clear that a big part of the intellectual elite and establishment had such habits, the neo cons counter revolution of the 80s put an end to their public displayings and they became silent but were still powerfull enough, they just waited and started recently to advocate for homosexual mariages, these are the same that were promoting pedophilia 30 years ago that pushed the harder for homosexual mariage.

Officialising such relations wasnt done to ease the homosexuals life but just to further the real agenda wich is the one i mentioned above, that is, pederastic pedophilia and perents/children sexual relations, mark my words, it will take only a few decades for such practices to be legalized completely, pedophilia is already legal in Europe, a German or a British has just to go to Spain and he can have sexual relations with 13 years old girls and boys.

Making sure this crazy ass post is preserved. Get help.

 

[Exophase]

Not at all but since everybody talk of homosexuality as being natural, wich i agree more or less, why not being completely naturals, to death if i can say so.

And everyone who mentioned that stressed that they aren't using something occurring in nature as a basis for ethical behavior, but only to dispute claims to the contrary.

As for your bizarre attempts to connect homosexuality with pedophilia, some actual studies would do better than a random anecdote. For instance:

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Just because you can find some pedophiles who are also gay doesn't mean that most gay people are also pedophiles. In fact, it wouldn't mean that even if all pedophiles were gay. Is it really so hard to conceive that men can be attracted to other men via a similar mechanism that most women are?

pedophilia is already legal in Europe, a German or a British has just to go to Spain and he can have sexual relations with 13 years old girls and boys.

That's hebephilia, not pedophilia (unless at 13 they are still prepubescent, which would be rare)

And no, that doesn't mean I'm conceding anything about gay people being hebephiles either.

 

[CitizenKain]

Not at all but since everybody talk of homosexuality as being natural, wich i agree more or less, why not being completely naturals, to death if i can say so.

That said i d like to give the exemple of France, a nation quite "advanced" on thoses matters and tell people how everything began to end with homosexual mariages.

During the 70s there was a movement called FLIP, explicitely the Front for Liberation of Pedophilia, they were asking for "freedom" of sexual intercourse between adults and teens as well as sexual relations between parents and children (be sure that this will be the next "progress" in matter of "rights").

Those homosexuals were part of the intellectual elite and they became bold enough as to appear in TVs and explicitly telling stories of sexual relations they had with 10-12 year old children despite such acts and related public statements were forbidden by laws.

With time it became clear that a big part of the intellectual elite and establishment had such habits, the neo cons counter revolution of the 80s put an end to their public displayings and they became silent but were still powerfull enough, they just waited and started recently to advocate for homosexual mariages, these are the same that were promoting pedophilia 30 years ago that pushed the harder for homosexual mariage.

Officialising such relations wasnt done to ease the homosexuals life but just to further the real agenda wich is the one i mentioned above, that is, pederastic pedophilia and perents/children sexual relations, mark my words, it will take only a few decades for such practices to be legalized completely, pedophilia is already legal in Europe, a German or a British has just to go to Spain and he can have sexual relations with 13 years old girls and boys.

You know, if you are going just make shit up like a stupid child, try better. Also, to spell and how sentences work, it doesn't help whatever batshit statement you are trying to make seem reasonable.

 

[BoberFett]

This is such a novel idea for a thread. I've never read anything like it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Youre right, we do call those people homosexuals. Whats your point? we arent arguing what being a homosexual is called, we are arguing if its right or not. I am saying that the only reason any of us are even here right now is because nature has hard wired just about every living creature on the planet to actively seek out, and mate with a member of the opposite sex. Nature is not an entity, and it has no intent, its just a term that easily describes the instinct and goal for all living creatures.

Homosexuality is biologically wrong, that is an absolutely factual statement.

You wouldn't know a factual statement if it bit you in the ass. Let me show you your logic:

If every person of any sex preferred only members of the opposite sex, we'd be up to our asses in people. Homosexuality is Gods way of protecting His creation from the ravages of overpopulation and sinners who work against homosexuality should be burned at the stake. Homosexually is biologically perfect for the preservation of the species. And you can bet your ass your very lucky to have that if the phony god you worship doesn't know this he's a dickhead.

Just imagine a world overrun by Christian Fundamentalist Pricks We can all thank Gays it ain't worse than it already is.

 

[dphantom]

There are (at least) two major flaws in this argument:
1) It assumes without foundation that legal homosexuality "interferes" with procreation. Or put another way, it assumes without foundation that if homosexuality were made illegal there would be an increase in procreation.
2) Even accepting for the sake of discussion that outlawing homosexuality would lead to an increase in procreation, this argument further assumes without foundation that an increase in procreation improves the chances for the survival of the human species. But it is clearly true that human overpopulation is a threat to the survival of the human speciess.

No, it simply means homosexuality is not pro species survival.

It is clearly true any species overpopulation puts that species survival at risk. It is clearly not true the human species is at that point where our survival is at risk.

 

[Exophase]

It is clearly true any species overpopulation puts that species survival at risk. It is clearly not true the human species is at that point where our survival is at risk.

It's not some clear demarcation line where you go from perfectly okay number of humans to too many. There are places in the world today that are very crowded and suffer a decreased quality of life because of it, but they still keep having lots of children. Maybe they're not in immediate risk of going extinct there, but you'd have a hard time arguing that there has ever been a point in human history where the species would have been at risk had a few percent of the population existed the reproduction pool.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So why refer to animal behavior as "homosexual"? We're just sticking our human experience on them the same way I am with saying they "murder".

I think you understand why I asked Alzan that question.

If you truly wish to know, there are enough scholarly works that have been published for you to easily find out the scientific reasoning for using the word homosexual.

But that's not what you're really about now, is it?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No, it simply means homosexuality is not pro species survival.

If that's true then how has our species managed to not only survive but increase to billions of individuals in spite of homosexual behavior occurring in the historical record for thousands of years?

 

[Greenman]

You do realize there is copious amounts of homosexual activity beyond just us Homo-sapiens right? Penguins, Lions, Dolphins, Dragon flies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

So your argument about it being 'against nature' falls pretty flat. And to throw your "no scientific basis" behind it, is just doubling down on stupid.

Please don't ever use the "it's common in nature" argument. In nature, sniffing butts is common, eating your own shit is common, killing defective young is common, none of these are things people should engage in. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it a good thing.

 

[sandorski]

Please don't ever use the "it's common in nature" argument. In nature, sniffing butts is common, eating your own shit is common, killing defective young is common, none of these are things people should engage in. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it a good thing.

ffs

 

[Abwx]

And everyone who mentioned that stressed that they aren't using something occurring in nature as a basis for ethical behavior, but only to dispute claims to the contrary.

As for your bizarre attempts to connect homosexuality with pedophilia, some actual studies would do better than a random anecdote. For instance:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I dont trust thoses studies, by definition there s no statistics for thoses things or the "good" candidates will never participate to such inquiries, but if it was not that spread and attractive for some people why would 5200 Pentagon employees buy child porn..?.

It means that they are sexually aroused by children but you wouldnt expect such a high rate in a single administration, this say that it s a rule everywhere, it s just that this is buried deep in secret gardens, you ll find no none to aknowledge such attractivness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7n316nGhVo

Just because you can find some pedophiles who are also gay doesn't mean that most gay people are also pedophiles. In fact, it wouldn't mean that even if all pedophiles were gay. Is it really so hard to conceive that men can be attracted to other men via a similar mechanism that most women are?

The link above tells that it cant be some but a lot.

As to why i m saying that gays are more prone to pedophilia, and hebephilia as you point it, it s because historical facts prove that homosexuals prefer teens whenever they have the choice, they can do nothing about it, sexuality goes beyond our poor laws, actualy it s a much more imperative law than any man made law.

Anyway i rest my case that homosexual mariage is just a step in the direction of a sexually normless society.

 

[Exophase]

I dont trust thoses studies, by definition there s no statistics for thoses things or the "good" candidates will never participate to such inquiries, but if it was not that spread and attractive for some people why would 5200 Pentagon employees buy child porn..?.

It means that they are sexually aroused by children but you wouldnt expect such a high rate in a single administration, this say that it s a rule everywhere, it s just that this is buried deep in secret gardens, you ll find no none to aknowledge such attractivness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7n316nGhVo

"Out of that 3500, investigators uncovered 264 employees or contractors"

"But only about 20% of those 264 employees were completely investigated and fewer still were prosecuted"

So no, not 5200 Pentagon employees. You should listen to the crap you link instead of just parroting the poorly informed. 5200 was the number that the sting operation uncovered total, and most weren't investigated to an extent which could actually determine guilt. All in all, a tiny number compared to the millions of gay people in the country.

Nor were there any statistics here on the sex of the person vs the sexes depicted in the porn, or do you suppose that gay people like young females too?

The link above tells that it cant be some but a lot.

Not really, there are millions of gay men in America, so even if all 5200 of those people legitimately buying child porn and they were all gay it still wouldn't say very much - but you haven't established anything like that.

As to why i m saying that gays are more prone to pedophilia, and hebephilia as you point it, it s because historical facts prove that homosexuals prefer teens whenever they have the choice, they can do nothing about it, sexuality goes beyond our poor laws, actualy it s a much more imperative law than any man made law.

Historical anecdotes don't prove anything. Historical records can be an extremely flawed statistical sample for a great many reasons. Especially when trying to apply it to society today.

I admit that people on average (in general, not just gay people) are probably more attracted to teenagers than they will admit (see all of the female teachers getting caught with their students). But hardly exclusively, and most well adjusted adults realize that it's a much better and more ethical idea to pursue adults.

But I suppose you think gay people are less ethical as well?

Anyway i rest my case that homosexual mariage is just a step in the direction of a sexually normless society.

Ah, this old tact..

Here's the thing, even if you actually believe that gay sex is bad, denying people gay marriage isn't going to make them less gay. And if your whole contention is that they really just want to get it on with kids, it's not like anyone's pushing to lower age of consent for marriage. If they really DID have a preference for children - and they really don't, but just for the sake of argument - denying them socially normal relationship outlets like marrying adults would make them more likely to act out covertly in pursuing children.

 

[sandorski]

Ah, this old tact..

Here's the thing, even if you actually believe that gay sex is bad, denying people gay marriage isn't going to make them less gay. And if your whole contention is that they really just want to get it on with kids, it's not like anyone's pushing to lower age of consent for marriage. If they really DID have a preference for children - and they really don't, but just for the sake of argument - denying them socially normal relationship outlets like marrying adults would make them more likely to act out covertly in pursuing children.

Regarding Age of Consent, current Norms and Laws definitely "violate Nature" and Tradition. Yet I don't hear people railing against them who rail on Homosexual Marriage using the "Nature" argument.

 

[Abwx]

"Out of that 3500, investigators uncovered 264 employees or contractors"

"But only about 20% of those 264 employees were completely investigated and fewer still were prosecuted"
.

Of course that they reduced the proportions as much as possible, the same way it work in England, as the BBC...

Nor were there any statistics here on the sex of the person vs the sexes depicted in the porn, or do you suppose that gay people like young females too?

I was talking of pedophilia, this encompass all sexual relation with children, so homosexual are only a part of this population.

Historical anecdotes don't prove anything. Historical records can be an extremely flawed statistical sample for a great many reasons. Especially when trying to apply it to society today.

Society of today that is governed by the "non dit" , in french it means what is not told (but thought).

I admit that people on average (in general, not just gay people) are probably more attracted to teenagers than they will admit (see all of the female teachers getting caught with their students). But hardly exclusively, and most well adjusted adults realize that it's a much better and more ethical idea to pursue adults.

Im not talking of heterosexual attractivness be it pedophilia, since the thread is about homosexuality and mariage i ll stay on this side to not deviate too much.

But I suppose you think gay people are less ethical as well?

Certainly that they can be as ethical as other groups but they often act as some maffia by favouring their siblings within professional decisions, the cultural head of my city is gay, when he recruited a man to help in cultural affairs he did choose a musician that i know very well and who is also a gay, and i can tell you that he was far from being the best candidate...

Here's the thing, even if you actually believe that gay sex is bad, denying people gay marriage isn't going to make them less gay. And if your whole contention is that they really just want to get it on with kids, it's not like anyone's pushing to lower age of consent for marriage. If they really DID have a preference for children - and they really don't, but just for the sake of argument - denying them socially normal relationship outlets like marrying adults would make them more likely to act out covertly in pursuing children.

They can live with their companion the way they want, i m not intolerant, every man is free to do what he wants with his body but we are not living in isolation, we are in constant interaction the ones with the others and within thoses interactions they must respect other people will, i means that if an homosexual make a proposition to a straight man the latter will feel somewhat agressed and yet the new laws says that it s the same as if was proposed sexual relations by a woman, that s not the case, this is a negation of right, the right to be straight, in other times such a proposition would result in a punch thrown, now we must abide by thoses people will and just answer no even if we felt insulted.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Jedytrolla think that we are in a palestinian/israelis related thread.

Abwx thinks he is posting in an anti-Israeli thread........

 

[JEDIYoda]

They can live with their companion the way they want, i m not intolerant, every man is free to do what he wants with his body but we are not living in isolation, we are in constant interaction the ones with the others and within thoses interactions they must respect other people will, i means that if an homosexual make a proposition to a straight man the latter will feel somewhat agressed and yet the new laws says that it s the same as if was proposed sexual relations by a woman, that s not the case, this is a negation of right, the right to be straight, in other times such a proposition would result in a punch thrown, now we must abide by thoses people will and just answer no even if we felt insulted.

more of your pro-Palestinian diatribe..lolol

 

[Abwx]

Abwx thinks he is posting in an anti-Israeli thread........

I suggest that you do your thread crapping and ad hominem elsewhere, otherwise i ll report your posts.