..............and hope that they don't decide to rebel by dabbling in homosexuality.
Surely you can not think that homosexuality is some sort of rebellion.
..............and hope that they don't decide to rebel by dabbling in homosexuality.
That's a good question, while I am not looking at having any children in the near future I was actually thinking about that. I guess I will have to educate them from an early age in the more conservative and long held beliefs of society and hope that they don't decide to rebel by dabbling in homosexuality.
I suppose I could just move to Alabama or maybe small town Texas, they wouldn't dare then.
That's a good question, while I am not looking at having any children in the near future I was actually thinking about that. I guess I will have to educate them from an early age in the more conservative and long held beliefs of society and hope that they don't decide to rebel by dabbling in homosexuality.
I suppose I could just move to Alabama or maybe small town Texas, they wouldn't dare then.
Well no, no I don't. I might not hold beliefs that are inline with yours, but that does not make me an idiot.
If you go back and read it, you'll find that the central point was that your "natural order of things" argument is wrong because humans, including you routinely go against it. Which tree did your computer grow on?
If you want to use the "natural order of things" argument without making yourself look like a fool and a hypocrite, you have two options:
i) Define anything done by humans as natural, on the basis that humans are natural.
ii) Live, or at least advocate living, a natural life. No technology above stone age, ideally. Certainly no electricity, etc, etc. Which, in an ironically amusing way, would make you a more hardcore "green" than almost any members of the Green Party.
I would debunk your argument, but you haven't made one. You've just said you think homosexuality is wrong because you think it's wrong.
So there you have it, nature is homophobic. You do realise homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice? Do you view handicapped people with the same abhorrence you do homosexuals? Or do they slot nicely into your extremely selective view of evolution?
Your entire belief structure is fallacious, you use fragments of information about evolution to try and justify what you believe, there is no consistency. Not to mention this survival of the fittest ********, when was the last time you had to fight for your life against another species in the wilds of the english countryside? Never?
I think you're missing a point. Two points, actually.
i) Why do you think that being offended by some form of irrational prejudice means trying to speak for other people?
ii) No-one can speak for anyone else, as we are all individuals. Exceptions can be made where one person authorises someone else to speak for them, but that is not the norm.
So a person can speak about what they, that one single person, that individual, finds offensive. They cannot speak for millions of people who happen to have one thing in common with them.
To use a an example as a reductio ad absurdum argument, your position leads to the conclusion that the only people who can object to sexism are hermaphrodites.
This entire thread is about using it in a derogatory way.
The deeply flawed nature of your logic is a good pointer to level of intelligence.
P.S I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but when they enter a debate with whimsical and nonsensical rhetoric and expect to be taken seriously, then it starts to grate.
Is used often on this forum.
If I were gay, I would find this offensive.
I think the word should be considered an expletive and not allowed on a family forum.
Thoughts?
(apart from calling the thread/idea gay?)![]()
You do realise that I could level exactly the same argument at you though. We all know about the 'birds and the bees' and how it all works. We all know that this is necessary for the survival and evolution of the human race. So now tell me, how does homosexuality possibly fit into that in any logical or none whimsical way? ...it is fairly logical to me, man and woman works ...man and man or woman and woman does not. This is why there are 2 genders.
If we just mix it all up and say anything goes. We end up with ...well chaos really. We are designed by evolution to work a certain way, maybe some geneticists can engineer a way around that at some point. But right now, it isn't there.
Oh to be as tolerant of others as you people.Liking the personal attacks too.
Oh to be as tolerant of others as you people.Liking the personal attacks too.
Burn all the gays I say!