Floe wrote:Yes...we are restricted to strict reproduction. If you're trying to reproduce, there is no other way.
I'm not saying its impossible to have sex without having a baby.

I don't see how you're not grasping what I'm saying, I just blatantly stated:

Err, what? We aren't restricted to strict reproduction. People have 'natural' sex all the time with no intention of reproducing.

I'm not saying there are other methods of reproduction, as that would be stupid, I'm saying we're not restricted to only have sex for reproduction. I really don't see how you're not getting that.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Biologically, it is harder for a woman to physically bond with her husband the more men she has sex with other than her husband.

What the actual fuck has that got to do with anything?

Also, do you see how I'm addressing everything you're saying? It's called common courtesy. You completely skipped the bulk of my post.

iopabc123789 wrote:yes i do , and i just see it that way and yo cant change your opionoin , the whole world cant , thats , a fact , even if i die , ill keep beliveing what i belive

So you're a closed-minded twat incapable of intellectual growth? I'm glad you admit that, now there can be no misunderstanding about how giant of an idiot you are. I also like how you replied to the simplest post and ignored all other, well-reasoned posts. Don't have a comeback?

iopabc123789 wrote:atully i also thank christ because islam is the only other religion besides critisantiny to make it an artile of faith to belive in jeaus christ , and watch this little boy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHdIfusa7X8&NR=1

and thats not the unnatuaral im talking about , this is the unrtural , if smae sex was natural? then why wouldent same sex produce babies? there has not been a single scientific record of a bebie being produced by the same sex

I'm glad to see you respond. Remember how I talked about if you didn't act like less of an idiot, I'd be less courteous? Calling me a "little boy" doesn't fit that definition, so I'll be having my fun now. Never let it be said you didn't have the chance to keep this civil.

So, you scientifically illiterate little shit, you of all people are going to try and teach me about evolution? Who the fuck do you think you are? You're no smarter than a fucking dog, for christs sake. And while we're on the subject of illiterate, learn to fucking type, you mong. What, you just flail your frothing head at the keyboard and post whatever comes out? I've seen children typing more accurately than you. I've spent a much longer time than you can ever imagine studying evolution. I'm no grad student or PhD, mind you, but I'm sure as fuck more qualified than you are. Imagine all that time in dog-years and perhaps you'll understand. I like how you can only link me to works of others, it betrays that you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about. I thoroughly enjoyed that video you linked me to, because it's the biggest load of fallacious shit, quote-mines and non-sequiturs I've seen in a long time. I could take the time to debunk each and every claim in it, but since you already admitted to being a closed-minded little cunt I won't bother. Instead, let me link you to a few videos about evolution, maybe after you've seen those you'll understand a little better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx5t5_trnuU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLnr_3J1IT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SgnnV8nV9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tom29twqCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yet1xkAv_HY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQk6MveZOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDknzZ9b6rg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w
I expect you to watch them all, because each one contains information debunking your hilarious little video.
But remember what I said about taking the evolution debate to the evolution thread? Fucking do that, or I will ban you. As it stands you're spamming up this topic. Plus, if you do that, I'll take you on intellectually instead of applying the same lazy standards you do and just post content made by others. (I still find it hilarious that you can't voice your own opinions but have to parrot others)

I will say this about your video: I find it hilarious that they talk about the Urey-Miller experiment as if it was of any significance. It's a 55 year old experiment based on false assumptions that still rendered valuable data, but also caused a problem. A problem which was solved 30 years ago. Way to be up to date and factual there, god-boy. Have another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArCr-vnugbw

Now about your baby argument (which you suspiciously made only after someone else made it, forget what your imam told you?), I'll tell you what I wrote below to Floe: "This really comes back to one thing: you apparently think that relationships are all about having kids. If you think that, fine but for a lot of people a relationship is something much deeper. A bond of love between two individuals. And you have no right to dictate to them whether or not they can love each other because it has fuck all to do with you."

I find it hilariously ironic that you would call me a little boy, because regardless of how old you are, you're stuck in the mindset of an 8-year-old. I'd advise you to grow past that, but I'm thoroughly convinced you're incapable of any such intellectual growth.
Now run back to the filth that spawned you and ask them for new things to post here to show those filthy heretics. Maybe the next thing they'll think up for you will be more convincing, though I doubt it.

Floe wrote:One of the many reasons why people like myself think that homosexuality is wrong is this. Physically, humans are made to be matched with the opposite sex. If this were not true, men+men and women+women would = babies, which it does not.

I'm sure this has been addressed, but I'd like to have my shot none the less.
First off, humans weren't "made" at all. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the nearest book you can find, because any book will be an improvement over what you've got (barring the bible, of course). It does immediately betray the reasons behind your thinking, though: unadulterated religious dogma. I can smell the stink from over here.
This really comes back to one thing: you apparently think that relationships are all about having kids. If you think that, fine but for a lot of people a relationship is something much deeper. A bond of love between two individuals. And you have no right to dictate to them whether or not they can love each other because it has fuck all to do with you.
I hope you can someday get past mid-15th century thinking and join the rest of us in the 21st. We're a little more enlightened now.

@Damon: I don't think that all relationships are about reproduction. Just because thats the topic I'm talking about you can't just assume that I think that love has nothing to do with it.

Soap MacTavish wrote:What the actual fuck has that got to do with anything?

Also, do you see how I'm addressing everything you're saying? It's called common courtesy. You completely skipped the bulk of my post.

I skip parts of your post because I either have nothing to say or I remind my self that I'm talking to a random stranger on the internet so I don't actually have to reply or give a fuck

Floe wrote:@Damon: I don't think that all relationships are about reproduction. Just because thats the topic I'm talking about you can't just assume that I think that love has nothing to do with it.

Soap MacTavish wrote:What the actual fuck has that got to do with anything?

Also, do you see how I'm addressing everything you're saying? It's called common courtesy. You completely skipped the bulk of my post.

I skip parts of your post because I either have nothing to say or I remind my self that I'm talking to a random stranger on the internet so I don't actually have to reply or give a fuck

Typical "I don't care" reply. If you don't care, fuck off and don't reply in the first place.

"I don't have to reply or give a fuck" = "I don't have to care" = "I can choose when I want to post and when I don't" :)

And we can choose for you. Don't post in the debate area if you're going to be a twat. You've been warned. Don't post again if you're going to disregard others posts or the topic at hand.

I was literally going to say that.

Floe wrote:@Damon: I don't think that all relationships are about reproduction. Just because thats the topic I'm talking about you can't just assume that I think that love has nothing to do with it.

Soap MacTavish wrote:What the actual fuck has that got to do with anything?

Also, do you see how I'm addressing everything you're saying? It's called common courtesy. You completely skipped the bulk of my post.

I skip parts of your post because I either have nothing to say or I remind my self that I'm talking to a random stranger on the internet so I don't actually have to reply or give a fuck

If you have nothing to say, that should really mean that you need to look at your position and reevaluate whether or not it's actually the right one. If you don't have a comeback that mean's you're wrong, if you choose to ignore that and blindly carry on with the same arguments that means you're a closed-minded religious zealot. Not that I think you'll understand just how horrible that is.

Also, if you understand that reproduction isn't the point of a relationship: why are you then saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children? You don't even understand your own fucking argument, let alone it's refutation, you backwards git.

@iopabc123789. You're a fucking moron. Not only are you narrow-minded in solidifying your unjustified shitty opinions from any other logical opinions, but you expect other people to change their opinion for you?

I think they should be allowed to marry like any normal people.
And marriage is about love and devotion, not reproduction( although many married couples have kids).

Well, 'marriage' is supposed to be something that is used to show the love between a man and a women. I think it is absolutely fine for 2 men or 2 women to love each other and express it, but not through marriage. Marriage was first started through religion[whether you like it or not Athiest, its true.], and in most religions being gay is a 'sin'. So therefore if homosexuals get married on the same degree as heterosexuals than they are performing a religious act, while committing a sin? I think homosexuals should be able to be together though, and have a ceremony just like a wedding, but not 'marriage', it is tarnishing the status of straight marriages. I don't understand whats wrong with being just life partners and just call it that? You don't have to call it marriage.

Before someone calls me a 'twat', I am NOT homophobic and don't you dare call me that, I think it is fine for homosexuals to be together and be life partners.

RedBeret wrote:Well, 'marriage' is supposed to be something that is used to show the love between a man and a women. I think it is absolutely fine for 2 men or 2 women to love each other and express it, but not through marriage. Marriage was first started through religion[whether you like it or not Athiest, its true.], and in most religions being gay is a 'sin'. So therefore if homosexuals get married on the same degree as heterosexuals than they are performing a religious act, while committing a sin? I think homosexuals should be able to be together though, and have a ceremony just like a wedding, but not 'marriage', it is tarnishing the status of straight marriages. I don't understand whats wrong with being just life partners and just call it that? You don't have to call it marriage.

Before someone calls me a 'twat', I am NOT homophobic and don't you dare call me that, I think it is fine for homosexuals to be together and be life partners.

You are literally contradicting yourself within your very own comment.

You're trying to act like you're all for gay rights, but then you go and fuck yourself over by saying idiotic shit like:

RedBeret wrote:I think homosexuals should be able to be together though, and have a ceremony just like a wedding, but not 'marriage', it is tarnishing the status of straight marriages.

No matter what kind of 'ceremony' is created for gay couples, it is still demeaning them and theoretically putting them below strait couples. Just as any other couple is entitled to marriage, gay couples should be as well.

You little homophobic twat, ONCE AGAIN you're trying to tell us that you think it's okay for gays to be together, and yet you're still trying to take rights away from them. This is no different than your last argument, and it will get no farther than your last attempt either.

RedBeret wrote:I think homosexuals should be able to be together though, and have a ceremony just like a wedding, but not 'marriage', it is tarnishing the status of straight marriages.

But you're not ok with them getting married because it's straight? Sure, civil union is fine (Which is the actual name for that "life partners" thing you're talking about) but it doesn't give you as many rights as marriage.

RedBeret wrote:Before someone calls me a 'twat', I am NOT homophobic and don't you dare call me that, I think it is fine for homosexuals to be together and be life partners.

But not be married. Makes perfect sense and totally isn't homophobic at all

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? It's like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults. But gays aren't allowed to get married. Society does allow murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters to marry. So why not gays? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. The Bible says gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage, and what if the gays aren't christian? They should be allowed to get married, adopt (because I doubt they can create them), and live a normal life. So, I do believe gays should be able to get married. It's no different from a regular marriage.

RedBeret wrote:Well, 'marriage' is supposed to be something that is used to show the love between a man and a women. I think it is absolutely fine for 2 men or 2 women to love each other and express it, but not through marriage. Marriage was first started through religion[whether you like it or not Athiest, its true.], and in most religions being gay is a 'sin'. So therefore if homosexuals get married on the same degree as heterosexuals than they are performing a religious act, while committing a sin? I think homosexuals should be able to be together though, and have a ceremony just like a wedding, but not 'marriage', it is tarnishing the status of straight marriages. I don't understand whats wrong with being just life partners and just call it that? You don't have to call it marriage.

Before someone calls me a 'twat', I am NOT homophobic and don't you dare call me that, I think it is fine for homosexuals to be together and be life partners.

You are a twat. Marriage was at first a more of a way to solve family fudes and create deals between families, not for love between hetrosexual males and women. The thing is that you seem to think that by using the word marriage you tarnish it if you allow homosexuals and lesbians to get married, which is not true.

The fact that people are still allowed to decide who gets what rights slightly worries me.