• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why anti gay laws in Russia are a good thing

I just think homosexuality is wrong, we shouldn't really allow it to grow. It's a disease. and those who go through it need help.
It's like that scene in one of the Star Trek movies, where they offer that engineer the chance to make some of that future glass stuff, and he's all chuffed and ****. Trying to drink a McD's milkshake is ****ing impossible without rupturing your throat. Like drinking ****ing cement, no? And that weird looking lass on that series, years ago. Blossom, that's it. Stupid name. You'd call a horse Blossom. Mayim Bialik I think it was. She had a ****ed up face and she dressed like a ****ing 90 year old. Anyway, the hexagonal structure drives people bat****. They can't handle it. Only an insect knows for sure.

Btw, Makaveli in this Killuminati, all through your body.
 
I just think homosexuality is wrong, we shouldn't really allow it to grow. It's a disease. and those who go through it need help.

Sad but true. But some would have you shut your eyes to what is plainly seen.
 
They need to make an anti SouthParkFan1 law. Seriously this is how you choose to make your first appearance here, with blatant hate speech?

What makes it hate to call homosexuality wrong? If it's wrong, then it's wrong.

There's just a lot of pretense as to it's normalcy, and that has everybody worked up.
 
Sad but true. But some would have you shut your eyes to what is plainly seen.

As usual, you are wrong. At least you are consistent, though.
 
What makes it hate to call homosexuality wrong? If it's wrong, then it's wrong.

There's just a lot of pretense as to it's normalcy, and that has everybody worked up.

Serious question: why?
no, really. Why do you care? How does it affect you?
 
Serious question: why?
no, really. Why do you care? How does it affect you?

Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?

Why lie? Why plot?
 
Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?

Why lie? Why plot?

To take over the world mwa ha ha ha ha.
 
Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?

Why lie? Why plot?

Because it's not a lie and it is important to refute the misinformation and outright ignorance that folks on your side of the issue post on this topic so that those who may not be knowledgeable don't falsely believe that anything folks on your side say has any accuracy. At least that's why I post.
 
Homosexuals should be treated as leapers were treated in biblical days. They should be forced to live only among themselves. Any community that wants to ban such deviants should be able to do so.
 
Homosexuals should be treated as leapers were treated in biblical days. They should be forced to live only among themselves. Any community that wants to ban such deviants should be able to do so.
A return to tradition I see? Well, I was planning to treat the Christians as my favorites Romans did by binding them to poles, covering them in pitch, and using them as human torches at the games. What fun we could have eh?
 
Homosexuals should be treated as leapers were treated in biblical days. They should be forced to live only among themselves. Any community that wants to ban such deviants should be able to do so.

ahheeemmm
Same-sex attitudes and behaviors in ancient Rome often differ markedly from those of the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual." The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminized". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and those of his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A return to tradition I see? Well, I was planning to treat the Christians as my favorites Romans did by binding them to poles, covering them in pitch, and using them as human torches at the games. What fun we could have eh?

I lie awake at night worrying that you might make good on this threat. :lamo
 
ahheeemmm
Same-sex attitudes and behaviors in ancient Rome often differ markedly from those of the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual." The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminized". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and those of his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't doubt it, just like I know the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. The Romans were not the pattern for righteousness.
 
I don't doubt it, just like I know the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. The Romans were not the pattern for righteousness.


Our government is patterned after the Roman Republic.
 
The Romans were not the pattern for righteousness.

You mean that entire civilization that adopted Christianity and passed the first ban on same sex marriages is not a model of righteousness? Interesting view. I would have figured you would love to model yourself after the Romans.
 
Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?

Why lie? Why plot?

Is it possible for you to see that other people use different definitions of "natural" and "normal" than you use?
 
Our laws are patterned after biblical principles.

Actually they are patterned off of Enlightenment principles. You know...things like social contract theory, individual rights, the natural equality of man, the idea of legitimate political power instead of divinely mandated political power, government based on consent of the people, and a society based on reason. Those are not exactly "biblical principles".
 
I don't doubt it, just like I know the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. The Romans were not the pattern for righteousness.

Actually, it doesn't as I have proven several times. Your refusal to accept this fact is because of your anti-gay agenda, not because of any accuracy.
 
Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.
Because we have empathy, like all human beings should. It's rather strange for someone not to care about their neighbors. I've always seen this as one of the main contradictions in the bible; how can you love thy neighbor, but have absolutely no compassion for them?

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?
There is no such fact to support what you say. That's the problem. Homosexuality, including lifelong monogamous relationships, is found in nearly every species of mammal; it's natural by definition because it occurs in nature. How is that a false argument? As for normalcy, there is no such thing; We are all unique, there is no "normal" human.

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?
The goal is to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, to live for others. We're trying to be decent human beings.

Why lie? Why plot?
What Lie?! you guys keep talking about this "lie" that we're telling you, without telling us what it is. We really can't respond to an allegation without knowing what it is. That goes for this "plot" as well.
 
Because I’m trying to figure out why YOU guys care.

I mean there’s the claim that homosexuality is normal and natural. I know it’s not, but the fact that this obviously false argument is so aggressively defended tells me that there is something going on. Why try to convince us that it is when it’s not? Why is this so important?

What’s the ultimate goal (and there IS an ultimate goal)?

Why lie? Why plot?

Is is really so hard for you to imagine that some people see the world differently than you do?

Are you of the opinion that you hold an infallible perspective of the world and anyone who deviates from that perspective must be up to something or have something wrong with them?

I've never known anyone who could not see other perspectives. That would be utterly boring. I step into the perspectives of people I disagree with on a daily basis.
 
Back
Top Bottom