- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,879
- Reaction score
- 2,707
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Then what are they?
Women are property. They always have been and always will be. Individuals who act on homosexual urges prove themselves to be unworthy of acceptance as full people because they have violated one of the most basic human instincts, reproduction. Therefore, they do not deserve to be granted full Rights/Privileges because of this.
Women are property. They always have been and always will be. Individuals who act on homosexual urges prove themselves to be unworthy of acceptance as full people because they have violated one of the most basic human instincts, reproduction. Therefore, they do not deserve to be granted full Rights/Privileges because of this.
1: Regarding the women and property bit...do you still believe in slavery? Because that is what your statements amount to.
2: Who says that homosexuals can't have kids? Being a homosexual does not equal being steril. There are plenty of homosexuals out there that choose to have kids....and do.
1. Yes, I do. Not based solely on racial criteria, but on other criteria, yes.
2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?
Ever hear of Surrogacy? Completely natural and brings a child into the world. Remember, your criteria is that the homosexuals must be able to reproduce and do it naturally.
1. Yes, I do. Not based solely on racial criteria, but on other criteria, yes.
2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?
Where I come from that's called ADULTERY.
2) Yes. You missed that fact that homosexuals can have sex with people of the opposite sex.
Adultery only applies in marriage. :shrug: Besides, that is not the criteria that you laid out. Not only that it has been an accepted form of having a child even when married since at least the Babalonia era.
As I just mentioned to Kal, that's called ADULTERY where I come from.
Really? Two people of the opposite sex engaged in marital sex is adultery? Since when?
When they are not married to each other or in a committed relationship with each other. We're talking about a homosexual couple, therefore there are no "two people of the opposite sex" to discuss anywhere in this. Engaging in any form of sexual activity with anyone other than your committed partner/husband/wife is Adultery. It's that simple. Therefore, a homosexual couple CANNOT, by definition, have a natural child.... their sexual organs don't allow for it.
2. I passed Biology in High School and I don't seem to remember any description of a NATURAL means for either two men or two women to reproduce. Did I miss something?
I know you are a woman and it's still insulting that you *think* women dont "understand what they are doing" when they have an abortion. And did you not imply that there was some responsibility involved that she was avoiding...by not being probed apparently, as that was the example.
I appreciate that you are pro-choice, and even more so because by your words, you disagree with choosing abortion, but still support the right to choose, but not recognizing that these belittling, painful (physically and emotionally), and obstructionist tactics (probes, pictures, moving facilities far from people, etc) are all completely disrespectful of women....if the law says she can have an abortion before 21 weeks, then leave her alone and stop putting up roadblocks.
I assumed (my fault) that monogamy was a given in the discussion. Apparently I shouldn't have. It may have been an accepted means to procreate over the years in other cultures, but it most definitely is not in any that I am associated with.
Two homosexual men can have children by having sex with the women who are their wives. That's not adultery
Women don't have rights. They belong to the dominant Male (father, brother, husband, etc....) in their family.
This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?
Yes it is adultery. They are not in a committed relationship with those women
Yes it is adultery. They are not in a committed relationship with those women, therefore the sexual act in and of itself is a Moral Crime. As I said to Kal, there was an assumption of Monogamy in my original comment. That was probably a poor assumption on my part considering the lack of morals in this age, but that's my mistake.
And yet it is a part of the culture that you are associated with. Christians have allowed surrogacy for centuries, even while married.
And monogamy has nothing to do with reproduction. Monogamy is about marriage. Something that is independent of reproduction. Which was your requirement for homosexuals being banned...because they couldn't reproduce naturally. When shown that they can indeed reproduce naturally you started throwing other obstacles against them. Obstacles which have nothing to do with reproduction. Which shows that your statement that they should be banned and not allowed rights by the government because they can't reproduce is a false statement. Simply admit that your ban has nothing to do with reproduction but has everything to do with your own style of morality that is no doubt based on your interpretation of a book written by men dead thousands of years ago.
Now you're just desperately grasping at straws. A gay man can be committed to his straight wife, to his family, and his marriage
Monogamy is actually a recent invention. Indeed Moses had two wives, and Solomon had lots more. I'm sure that if I looked I could find many more people that are mentioned in the bible has having polygamous relationships. And it being A OK to do by the Christian religion.
I'm a woman. I have rights, and lots of them. I don't belong to anyone - and I can assure you, my husband wouldn't consider me his property either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?