|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2011 : 07:46:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
The homosexual couple cannot procreate and are not indeended to make up a family unit. There are things kids learn from their dad and things they learn from their mom. Two dads or two moms was never the intent and goes against all things natural, just ask Dave about what is natural and unnatural. That's his specialty. |
List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior
African Buffalo[21]
African Elephant[22]
Agile Wallaby[23]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
American Bison[21][24]
Antelope[25]
Asian Elephant[22]
Asiatic Lion[26]
Asiatic Mouflon[27]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
Australian Sea Lion[28]
Barasingha[29]
Barbary Sheep[30]
Beluga[19]
Bharal[31]
Bighorn Sheep[30]
Black Bear[32]
Blackbuck[33]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Black-tailed Deer[29]
Bonnet Macaque[14]
Bonobo[34][35][36]
Bottlenose Dolphin[19][37]
Bowhead Whale[19]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[38]
Bridled Dolphin[19]
Brown Bear[32]
Brown Capuchin[39]
Brown Long-eared Bat[40]
Brown Rat[41]
Buffalo[30]
Caribou[42]
Cat (domestic)[43]
Cattle (domestic)[44]
Cheetah[26]
Collared Peccary[45]
Commerson's Dolphin[19]
Common Brushtail Possum[46]
Common Chimpanzee[47]
Common Dolphin[19]
Common Marmoset[39]
Common Pipistrelle[48]
Common Raccoon[49]
Common Tree Shrew[50]
Cotton-top Tamarin[51]
Crab-eating Macaque[14]
Crested Black Macaque[14]
Dall's Sheep[30]
Daubenton's Bat[40]
Dog (domestic)[52]
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Dugong[53]
Dwarf Cavy[38]
Dwarf Mongoose[54]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[41]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
Elk[29]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
European Bison[21]
Fallow Deer[29]
False Killer Whale[19]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[55]
Fin Whale[19]
Fox[56]
Gazelle[25]
Gelada Baboon[57]
Giraffe[25][4][58]
Goat (Domestic)[30]
Golden Monkey[59]
Gorilla[60]
Grant's Gazelle[25]
Grey-headed Flying Fox[40]
Grey Seal[28]
Grey squirrel[disambiguation needed][61]
Grey Whale[19][20]
Grey Wolf[62]
Grizzly Bear[32]
Guinea Pig (Domestic)[38]
Hamadryas Baboon[57]
Hamster (Domestic)[38]
Hanuman Langur[63]
Harbor Porpoise[64]
Harbor Seal[28]
Himalayan Tahr[65]
Hoary Marmot[66]
Horse (domestic)[67]
Human (see Human sexual behavior)
Indian Fruit Bat[40]
Indian Muntjac[68]
Indian Rhinoceros[69]
Japanese Macaque[14]
Javelina[70]
Kangaroo Rat[41]
Killer Whale[19]
Koala[71]
Kob[15][72]
Larga Seal[28]
Least Chipmunk[61]
Lechwe[72]
Lesser Bushbaby[73]
Lion[26][74][75][76][77][78]
Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
Lion Tamarin[39]
Little Brown Bat[40]
Livingstone's Fruit Bat[40]
Long-eared Hedgehog[79]
Long-footed Tree Shrew[50]
Macaque[80]
Markhor[81]
Marten[49]
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Moco[82]
Mohol Galago[73]
Moor Macaque[14]
Moose[83]
Mountain Goat[30]
Mountain Tree Shrew[50]
Mountain Zebra[84]
Mouse (domestic)[85]
Moustached Tamarin[51]
Mule Deer[29]
Musk-ox[86]
Natterer's Bat[40]
New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
Nilgiri Langur[63]
Noctule[48]
North American Porcupine[87]
Northern Elephant Seal[28]
Northern Fur Seal[28]
Northern Quoll[55]
Olympic Marmot[88]
Orangutan[89]
Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
Patas Monkey[90]
Pere David's Deer[29]
Pig (Domestic)[91]
Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
Plains Zebra[92]
Polar Bear[32]
Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
Proboscis Monkey[59]
Pronghorn[93]
Przewalski's Horse[84]
Puku[94]
Quokka[95]
Rabbit[96]
Raccoon Dog[97]
Red Deer[29]
Red Fox[98]
Red Kangaroo[23]
Red-necked Wallaby[23]
Red Squirrel[61]
Reeves's Muntjac[68]
Reindeer[42]
Rhesus Macaque[14]
Right Whale[19]
Rock Cavy[38]
Rodrigues Fruit Bat[40]
Roe Deer[29]
Rufous Bettong[99]
Rufous-naped Tamarin[51]
Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
Saddle-back Tamarin[51]
Savanna Baboon[57]
Sea Otter[100]
Serotine Bat[40]
Sheep (Domestic)[30][101]
Siamang[102]
Sika Deer[29]
Slender Tree Shrew[50]
Sooty Mangabey[90]
Sperm Whale[19]
Spinifex Hopping Mouse[41]
Spinner Dolphin[19]
Spotted Hyena[16][18]
Spotted Seal[28]
Squirrel Monkey[103]
Striped Dolphin[19]
Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[104]
Stumptail Macaque[14]
Swamp Deer[29]
Swamp Wallaby[23]
Takhi[84]
Talapoin[90]
Tammar Wallaby[23]
Tasmanian Devil[104]
Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
Thinhorn Sheep[30]
Thomson's Gazelle[25]
Tiger[105]
Tonkean Macaque[14]
Tucuxi[106]
Urial[107]
Vampire Bat[40]
Verreaux's Sifaka[108]
Vervet[90]
Vicuna[109]
Walrus[110][111]
Wapiti[112]
Warthog[113]
Waterbuck[114]
Water Buffalo[30]
Weeper Capuchin[39]
Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
West Indian Manatee[115]
Whiptail Wallaby[23]
White-faced Capuchin[39]
White-fronted Capuchin[39]
White-handed Gibbon[116]
White-lipped Peccary[117]
White-tailed Deer[29]
Wild Cavy[38]
Wild Goat[30]
Wisent[21]
Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Yellow-toothed Cavy[38]
And that's just mammals! You know... The class that we humans belong to. There's a lot more homosexuality out there among other classes of animales. So much for goes against all things natural.... If it occurs in nature, by definition, it's natural.
Also, and this is a little more anecdotal, but I have a nephew who has two mothers and two fathers (turkey baster method) and he is doing just fine. He's in collage now and what'd ya know? He's not gay.
From an biological standpoint, social conservatives (with views derived mostly from the bible) have no case. None at all. Nada. It's a bleeding dead parrot.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 10:40:10 [Permalink]
|
While homosexuality has been clearly documented as existing in nature in non-human species, I don't think that should be the argument. Nature is often brutal and nasty, and certainly has no preference for higher order animals. Some monkeys in Africa are pushing the more sophisticated and intelligent apes to extinction simply because the monkeys developed the ability to digest the fruit they both eat when it is not ripe enough for the apes to eat. Monkeys win, apes starve. Lots of creatures starve in nature all the time - what a horrible way to die. And animsls which are killed in nature are often killed in slow, painful ways. Just last night I went in my back yard and witnessed a spider wrapping up its prey to eat later, the prey still hopelessly wriggling and striving to break free. Nature is behind recent floods caused by hurricanes. Nature is behind the most horrible of diseases which involve tiny, simplistic forms of life killing much more sophisticated and intelligent forms of life. Nature obviously doesn't give a shit about any of its children. Humans have improved on nature all the time. It's why my cousin with Noonan's syndrome (who is now 20 years old and healthy, although handicapped) didn't die before the age of 6 months. It is why my husband's best friend with cystic fibrosis didn't die before the age of 6 (he's in his 30's now and just got married to an amazing woman.) Nature can suck it. Humans should strive to find meaning in work and play and love and relationships any way we can, nature be damned.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 11:10:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
While homosexuality has been clearly documented as existing in nature in non-human species, I don't think that should be the argument.
|
I agree. But if Bill is going to say that homosexuality is unnatural, then pointing out that it's found in every class of animal is the counter argument to that claim. The only other possibility is that nature is unnatural, by Bill's own definition. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 12:36:37 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: | The homosexual couple cannot procreate and are not indeended to make up a family unit. |
Not sure what "indeended" means, but as a matter of fact, gay couples today can procreate. My cousin was talking about it the other day because he's quite young and excited about the idea that if he and his boyfriend get married and have enough money in the future they could have a child that would share both their genes.
A little about these new technologies from Wikipedia:
In recent decades, a new possibility for LGBT parenting, same-sex procreation (where two women could have a son or daughter with equal genetic contributions from both women, or where two men could have a son or daughter with equal genetic contributions from both men), has become a possibility, through the creation of either female sperm or male eggs from the cells of adult women and men. With female sperm and male eggs, lesbian and gay couples wishing to become parents would not have to rely on a third party donor of sperm or egg.
The first significant development occurred in 1991, in a patent application filed by U.Penn. scientists to fix male sperm by extracting some sperm, correcting a genetic defect in vitro, and injecting the sperm back into the male's testicles.[1] While the vast majority of the patent application dealt with male sperm, one line suggested that the procedure would work with XX cells, i.e., cells from an adult woman to make female sperm.
In the two decades that followed, the idea of female sperm became more of a reality. In 1997, scientists partially confirmed such techniques by creating chicken female sperm in a similar manner.[2] They did so by injecting blood stem cells from an adult female chicken into a male chicken's testicles. Some years later, other Japanese scientists created female offspring by combining the eggs of two adult mice, though using a procedure that would not be allowed for humans.
In 2008, a flurry of announcements revealed further developments with human same-sex reproduction, with a patent application filed by an American researcher[3] specifically on methods for creating human female sperm using artificial or natural Y chromosomes and testicular transplantation.[4] A UK-based group, in an interview, predicted they would be able to create human female sperm within five years.[5] Another group at the Butantan Institute in Brazil is working on creating male eggs from embryonic stem cells, and if successful, from adult skin cells, though their current experiments are with mice.[6] All of these developments and more are listed in Timeline of Research in Human Same-sex Procreation. |
Because of his irrational bigotry, Bill probably finds all this sort of stuff gross and would decry it for being so "unnatural", while I'm sure he has no problem or icky reaction to reading about heterosexual couples taking advantage of reproductive technologies to have their own genetic children. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/10/2011 12:39:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2011 : 02:43:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I believe "fudge-packing" was the expression he used. |
Good memory, Mab.
|
Such an offensive, bigoted comment isn't easily forgotten.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 07:21:54 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| What does the ability to procreate have to do with adoption, fostering or marriage? |
No homosexual couple alive can reproduce. Therefore it is self evident that homsexual couples were never the the intent for the family nucleus, whether you subscribe to a supernatural or a materialistic explanation for the creation of the universe and all its inhabitants. I don't recall saying that it had anything to do with marriage.
| The homosexual couple cannot procreate and are not indeended to make up a family unit. |
Says who? |
The Creator of the universe.
| How can you say that two loving people do not intend to create a family? |
I never said that. I said it was not the intent of the Creator of the universe that homosexuals reproduce, which makes it self evident that they were never intended by the the Creator of the universe to make up the family nucleus. We know this because it is reality.
| So single parents should be outlawed, yes? |
I will say this that a heterosexual couple is obviously the design intent for the family nucleus. That is self evident. However if it came down to a homosexual couple or a single heterosexual I would choose the single heterosexual. It is the closer of the two to the natural design intent.
| How so, when homosexual behavior has been observed in at least 100 other species? |
All this demonstrates is that man is not the only "animal" to act on sexual urges in an unnatural or unintended manner. Whether it is a homosexual water buffalo couple or a human homosexual couple reproduction is not attainable because it was never intended to be.
| Let's say, Bill, that there's a married couple, and before they have children, the man gets in an automobile accident which destroys his testicles. Should the government step in and annul the marriage, Bill, since there's no chance of procreation, whether they ever intended to have kids or not? |
That is silly. That is like saying a combine, which was designed with the intent to pick corn, should not be chosen over a bulldozer to pick corn simply because the combine has a flat tire and so therefor a bulldozer makes just as much sense to use to pick corn as the combine, even though it is self evident that the bulldozer was never designed with the intent to pick corn. Your trying to convince me that it makes no difference if you use a combine or a bulldozer to pick corn and I am saying that it is self evident that you are wrong. Go try and pick some corn with a bulldozer if you doubt me.
| And if the state supplies them a turkey baster, they won't even need to adopt! |
They can't supply their own turkey baster? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 07:32:19 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by marfknox |
| When you oppose allowing sterile people to get married I'll believe you when you say you are "tolerant" of gays. |
I thought we were talking about adoption? I would not oppose a sterile couple adopting as long they were heterosexual. This would be the better duplication of the designed intent of the human family nucleus, which is a female and male reproducing children. The part where they then hand the children off to a homosexual couple is all man's idea and a distortion of the design intent.
| Oh how generous of you. Man, you really are the model of tolerance! Are you okay with Satanists getting married too? Just checking. |
If it were a male and female Satanists then I would not stand in their way of getting married. If it was a homosexual Satanist couple then I would be opposed since marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women.
| They can procreate with each other and what do you know, children. |
Yes, almost any man can stick his penis in almost any woman of child-bearing age's vagina, and eventually produce a child. What excellent qualifications for being parents! Alcoholics, manipulators, convicts, you are fine with all them getting married and having kids, but not gays! But you are tolerant of gays. Really |
!
I never said that every heterosexual couple would be good parents. What I have been saying is that it was the designed intent that a man and women reproduce and raise children. If the deigned intent were for homosexuals to reproduce and raise children then the Creator of the universe would have given them the ability to do so. Homosexual couples raising adopted children is merly man's added distorion of the design intent of the human family nucleus. Again, this is all self evident. You are not arguing against me here but rather you are arguing with reality.
| Your claim that you are "tolerant" of gays is total bullshit. You are not tolerant of them if you support policies that would prevent them from equal rights. |
Simply for pointing out to you that which is self evident is no reason at all to say that I am intolerant.
| Children are never just raised by parents. There are always other adults involved: grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, babysitters, teachers, etc. Children have plenty of male and female role models in their lives. There is no evidence that children are harmed by not having a man and woman who are married living in the home they grow up in. There is evidence that children of gays do suffer, but the evidence is that they suffer from discrimination. From "tolerant" people like you, asshole. Oh yeah, would you support laws that would prevent single from adopting or fostering children? Also, would you support laws that prevent gay people from conceiving their own children? Because these days, affluent gay couples have all sorts of fertility options to take advantage of. And if you would support such laws banning, say, lesbians from getting artificially inseminated, or banning gay men from hiring a surrogate, wouldn't it only be consistent to ban heterosexuals from conceiving and raising children out of wedlock? Your argument falls apart under any close examination. The idea that you support gays even fostering to adopt kids, when there are thousands of foster kids just waiting to be adopted, is particular sick. It's not like those kids are being torn from one your nice, little heterosexual parents. Tolerant my ass. |
Look, you can add all the qualifiers and anecdotal examples that you want but this does not change the reality of that which is self evident. Homosexual couples cannot procreate because they were never intended to. Heterosexual couples can procreate because they were intended to. You cannot just dismiss reality with a hand wave. No matter how many little self protests you want to throw up in objection you have yet to change the mind of the Creator of the universe on this matter. I would think that you would be smart enough to realize when an effort is in vain. I don't see you changing the mind of the Creator of universe on this issue anytime soon. When a homosexual couple can reproduce it will then be self evident that you have changed his mind.
| Like what? And what that can't be learned from other adults in the kid's life, like grandparents? |
Are you kidding me?
| Hey, Bill, I have a question for you. The article also mentions that one in four gay couples are raising children already |
But not a single one of the children was the result of a gay couple. Again, it is self evident that homosexuales are not intended to reproduce and are a distortion of the design intent of a human family nucleus. Again, when a homosexual human couple can reproduce then I would reconsider my position. I would have to as it would be self evident. I can't shape reality by my beliefs no more then you can. And your right now your beliefs are not alligning with reality.
| Do you advocate all those kids being forcibly removed from their parents? Just curious. |
Probably not in every instance. I would be against future adapting out of kids to homosexuals is all I can say for the short answer here.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 08:41:57 [Permalink]
|
| Adam and Eve weren't supposed to reproduce either. And now that transgression is called "original sin." Only gays are protected from sinning in that way. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. God really made a mess of Genesis... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 10:07:17 [Permalink]
|
| Adam and Eve weren't supposed to reproduce either. |
Hogwash. They were also to rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and and every living creature that moves on the ground. They went 2 for 2 in regards to those commands.
| And now that transgression is called "original sin." |
Reproducing is not what is refereed to as original sin. It was the eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge after they had been warned not to.
| Only gays are protected from sinning in that way. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. God really made a mess of Genesis... |
Again, tangents do nothing to change the facts of reality. And reality dictates that no homosexual couple can reproduce, nor could they ever and nor will they ever. They were never intended to. Man's attempt to convince us that a homosexual couple raising children is no different then a heterosexual couple is just his attempt to dismiss reality with a hand wave and place his distorted attempt at dictating the design intent of the human family nucleus in line with or even above the true design of intent of the human family nucleus which we see in reality. Again, if/when human homosexual couples can reproduce with each other I will then be willing to reconsider my position. I would have to as it would be self evident before me and I can no more dictate reality with my beliefs then you can. But until then current reality dictates that no homosexual couple can reproduce. By design reality dictates that this is accomplished by heterosexual couples. Again, you are not arguing with me here but rather with the reality put forth by the Creator of the universe. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 10:16:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No homosexual couple alive can reproduce. |
So why do gay people have kids all the time?| Therefore it is self evident that homsexual couples were never the the intent for the family nucleus... |
The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is.| ...whether you subscribe to a supernatural or a materialistic explanation for the creation of the universe and all its inhabitants. |
No, that's completely wrong. Materialism doesn't address what is or is not a "family nucleus."| I don't recall saying that it had anything to do with marriage. |
You seemed to be objecting to homosexuals getting married or adopting children because they cannot reproduce. Is that not what you meant?| The homosexual couple cannot procreate and are not indeended to make up a family unit. |
Says who? |
The Creator of the universe. |
I don't accept you as a spokesperson for the creator of the universe.| How can you say that two loving people do not intend to create a family? |
I never said that. I said it was not the intent of the Creator of the universe that homosexuals reproduce... |
How do you know the intent of the creator with regard to homosexual reproduction? It's obvious that they do reproduce, so it's obvious that the creator is so weak that its intentions can be overruled by mere mortals.| ...which makes it self evident that they were never intended by the the Creator of the universe to make up the family nucleus. We know this because it is reality. |
Reality is actually quite different from what you say it is.| I will say this that a heterosexual couple is obviously the design intent for the family nucleus. That is self evident. However if it came down to a homosexual couple or a single heterosexual I would choose the single heterosexual. It is the closer of the two to the natural design intent. |
Who cares about "the natural design intent?" Is adopting a child "the natural design intent?"| All this demonstrates is that man is not the only "animal" to act on sexual urges in an unnatural or unintended manner. Whether it is a homosexual water buffalo couple or a human homosexual couple reproduction is not attainable because it was never intended to be. |
We were talking about adoption, foster parenting and marriage. Why does it matter to those subjects if a homosexual couple can't have kids of their own?| That is silly. That is like saying a combine, which was designed with the intent to pick corn, should not be chosen over a bulldozer to pick corn simply because the combine has a flat tire and so therefor a bulldozer makes just as much sense to use to pick corn as the combine, even though it is self evident that the bulldozer was never designed with the intent to pick corn. Your trying to convince me that it makes no difference if you use a combine or a bulldozer to pick corn and I am saying that it is self evident that you are wrong. Go try and pick some corn with a bulldozer if you doubt me. |
You're seriously equating picking corn with being married? Can you be any more insulting? Where is the evidence that homosexuals getting married is like trying to pick corn with a bulldozer? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 10:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And reality dictates that no homosexual couple can reproduce, nor could they ever and nor will they ever. |
Wow, Bill knows the future.| They were never intended to. |
Nature says otherwise.| Man's attempt to convince us that a homosexual couple raising children is no different then a heterosexual couple... |
Nobody is trying to say it's no different. It's just no worse. It certainly is different for a kid to have two moms or two dads, but that doesn't lead the kid to do less well in school or life than any kid brought up by a mom and dad, or one mom, or one dad.| ...is just his attempt to dismiss reality with a hand wave and place his distorted attempt at dictating the design intent of the human family nucleus in line with or even above the true design of intent of the human family nucleus which we see in reality. |
This tortured verbiage is nothing more than your attempt to position yourself as spokesman for the "true design" of the universe. I'm not buying it.| Again, if/when human homosexual couples can reproduce with each other I will then be willing to reconsider my position. |
Homosexuality doesn't make one sterile. They have kids all the time. Hand-waving it away by claiming that they don't have kids with each other is to simply deny reality.| I would have to as it would be self evident before me and I can no more dictate reality with my beliefs then you can. |
You're certainly trying to dictate a reality which doesn't exist.| But until then current reality dictates that no homosexual couple can reproduce. |
Not true.| By design reality dictates that this is accomplished by heterosexual couples. |
Not true.| Again, you are not arguing with me here but rather with the reality put forth by the Creator of the universe. |
Not true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 10:35:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I thought we were talking about adoption? I would not oppose a sterile couple adopting as long they were heterosexual. This would be the better duplication of the designed intent of the human family nucleus, which is a female and male reproducing children. |
Are you kidding me? A sterile couple is surely intended to not have children! How much more unnatural can you get?
It's obvious that you, Bill, are just fine with people fighting against their self-evident nature just so long as they try to mimic your view of nature.| The part where they then hand the children off to a homosexual couple is all man's idea and a distortion of the design intent. |
A sterile couple adopting kids is all man's idea, too. Your justifications are self-contradictory.| If it was a homosexual Satanist couple then I would be opposed since marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women. |
Show us where "marriage" is defined that way.| I never said that every heterosexual couple would be good parents. What I have been saying is that it was the designed intent that a man and women reproduce and raise children. |
But what does that have to do with getting married or adoption? Nothing at all.| If the deigned intent were for homosexuals to reproduce and raise children then the Creator of the universe would have given them the ability to do so. |
They're not sterile, Bill.| Homosexual couples raising adopted children is merly man's added distorion of the design intent of the human family nucleus. |
Says you.| Again, this is all self evident. |
It is self-evident bigotry on your part, since you can't keep your story straight.| You are not arguing against me here but rather you are arguing with reality. |
Then you should stop arguing.| Simply for pointing out to you that which is self evident is no reason at all to say that I am intolerant. |
For claiming things are self-evident which clearly are not in order to justify your obvious distaste for the way some people have sex, I'll call you a massively hypocritical bigot.| ...you have yet to change the mind of the Creator of the universe on this matter. |
Where is your evidence that you know the mind of the creator of the universe? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 12:52:52 [Permalink]
|
OK, lets track down all the little sub-arguments that somehow festered and hived off of a discussion about a Drummer who became part of a charismatic church.
1) Homosexuality is unnatural.
I think that one has been disproven by the over 150 species that it has been observed in.
2) The creator of the universe do not mean for homosexuals (but not all non-procreational couples) to be part of a family unit and this is self evident because they cannot reproduce. (assumed: without human scientific intervention)
Seems like a tautology within Bill's chain of thought. Unsupported.
3) This is the creator of the universe's thoughts.
Ahhhhhh. No. The creator of the universe as you understand him is not here. You are forwarding the statement with no attendant documentation. Therefore, these are your thoughts and you are tasked with defending them.
4) Marriage is betwwen a man a woman.
Only as defined by the Constitutionally questionable Defense of Marriage Act and some sub-sects of major religions. This has to be divided into the definition differences of religious and civil marriages.
If we ignore the religious aspect (for which the government holds itself incompetent to pass judgement upon) and just focus on the legal portion of marriage where it is the blending of two seperate households into a single unit. There are no strictures on ability to procreate (except for those states that allow incestuous marriages to sterile couples only.).
5) Adoption of children by homosexuals should be banned.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx
Baseless per extensive research on the matter. It should be allowed so that children in need of adoption can find a loving and secure home.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 13:27:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.of the universe?
|
| So why do gay people have kids all the time? |
I never said homosexuals could not have kids. I said the homosexual couple cannot reproduce with each other. This is self evident.
| The "family nucleus" is whatever a couple decides it is. |
That would be the distorted family nucleus.
| No, that's completely wrong. Materialism doesn't address what is or is not a "family nucleus." |
It completely addresses it when it gives the ability to reproduce to heterosexuals only.
| You seemed to be objecting to homosexuals getting married or adopting children because they cannot reproduce. Is that not what you meant? |
I object to homosexuals getting married for other reasons. I object to homosexuals adopting children because it is the exact opposite of the self evident design intent for the family nucleus given to us by reality.
| I don't accept you as a spokesperson for the creator of the universe. |
I am not asking you to. I am asking to accept reality as the spokesman for the Creator of the universe. And that reality dictates that homosexual human couples cannot reproduce with each other.
| How do you know the intent of the creator with regard to homosexual reproduction? It's obvious that they do reproduce, so it's obvious that the creator is so weak that its intentions can be overruled by mere mortals. |
I never said that homosexuals could not reproduce. I said that homosexual couples could not reproduce with each other. Obviously a homosexual women could have a one time heterosexual relationship and get pregnant. Or she could impregnated with another mans sperm via artificial means and then she could return to her homosexual partner to raise the kid as their own. But the kid is not truly their own, because as I have been saying a homosexual couple cannot reproduce with each other and obtain and raise their own kid, while heterosexual couples can and do. This just bolsters my point that every homosexual couple with children had to obtain them using heterosexual reproduction methods, or artificial heterosexual reproduction methods. Never in the history of man has a homosexual couple reproduced a child for themselves. They can't and they were never intended to do so.
| Reality is actually quite different from what you say it is. |
Not really. Of course you might throw all logic out the window and claim that just because no person who has ever existed in the history of the plant was ever brought about through a homosexual relationship and that all persons in the history of the world were created using heterosexual reproductive means or artificial reproductions of heterosexual relationships and say that that is no evidence that the design intent was for men and women to reproduce in a heterosexual relationship and raise the child unto maturity alone. The same twisted logic will also dismiss the fact that no person in the history of the world has ever existed via a homosexual relationship and say that this has no bearing when comparing homosexuals acting as a family vs heterosexual couples. That is why since the beginning of time until this very day the homosexuals raising children has had to fight for it's acceptance because the overwhelming majority can recognize that reality dictates that men and women are to reproduce and raise children. It's not about enlightenment as homosexuality has been around for eons. The reason most people still to this day look at homosexuals couples raising kids as a distortion of reality is because it is. That will never change just because time is added.
| Who cares about "the natural design intent?" |
Most people.
| Is adopting a child "the natural design intent?" |
No. But that is why I said a heterosexual couple adopting a child is infinitely closer to the design intent then is a homosexual couple adopting a child.
| We were talking about adoption, foster parenting and marriage. Why does it matter to those subjects if a homosexual couple can't have kids of their own? |
Well I was talking about adoption and it matters to that subject because if homosexual couples were supposed to be raising children they would have been given the ability to reproduce them with each other. Heterosexual couples are supposed to raise kids and so they have been given the ability to reproduce their own offspring. A small minute fraction of heterosexuals might be born sterile and therefore cannot have kids but to use this to justify homosexuals couples raising kids is a joke as 100% of all homosexual couples cannot reproduce offspring with each other.
| You're seriously equating picking corn with being married? Can you be any more insulting? Where is the evidence that homosexuals getting married is like trying to pick corn with a bulldozer? |
You are confused. In response to the silly notion that homosexuals couples should be allowed to adopt just because a small minute fraction of heterosexuals are born or have become sterile is like saying a bulldozers should be used to pick corn just because one combine has a flat tire.
| Wow, Bill knows the future. |
I did not claim that. That is why I added that if any homosexual couples could ever reproduce in the future that I would be forced to reconsider my position. Until that day not so much.
If you toss out all history from the dawn of time and all logic when coming to that conclusion, yes you could conclude that homosexual couples were intended to reproduce and raise children.
| Nobody is trying to say it's no different. It's just no worse. It certainly is different for a kid to have two moms or two dads, but that doesn't lead the kid to do less well in school or life than any kid brought up by a mom and dad, or one mom, or one dad. |
I have never said that there are no bad heterosexual parents. I am simply stating that when it comes to reality it has been fully demonstrated that heterosexual relations are the chosen means for reproduction and family nucleus, this is undeniable. It's simply your just-so story that this can include homosexual relations.
| This tortured verbiage is nothing more than your attempt to position yourself as spokesman for the "true design" of the universe. I'm not buying it. |
I am not the spokesman for anything. But reality is the spokesman here and reality has stated that homosexual couples cannot produce children. It's just by the wave of your magic wand that says even so gays should still be allowed to do that which is unintended.
| Homosexuality doesn't make one sterile. They have kids all the time. Hand-waving it away by claiming that they don't have kids with each other is to simply deny reality. |
Again? I never said homosexuals were sterile. I said that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce with each other. If a gay man and gay women want to leave their partners and have sex with one another certainly a child could result from that heterosexual relationship.
| You're certainly trying to dictate a reality which doesn't exist. |
Not me bro. It's all self evident
Provide some evidence of a homosexual couple who has reproduced with themselves via homosexual relations.
Oh it's true.
Oh it's true.
| Are you kidding me? A sterile couple is surely intended to not have children! How much more unnatural can you get? |
Hogwash. The guys wife could have cut his balls off in a fit of rage.
| It's obvious that you, Bill, are just fine with people fighting against their self-evident nature just so long as they try to mimic your view of nature. |
It's not my view of nature, it's called reality.
| A sterile couple adopting kids is all man's idea, too. Your justifications are self-contradictory. |
That is why I said this would be infinity closer to the design intent then homosexuals adopting children. No contradiction.
| Show us where "marriage" is defined that way. |
I am to lazy to look up my state constitution right now, but it is in there.
| But what does that have to do with getting married or adoption? Nothing at all. |
It has everything to do with adoption. If we allow you to say two homosexuals raising kids is OK just because Dave said so the flood gates are now opened up to anything that people want to define as a family nucleus. Next the 5 guys on a Friday night bowling team will want to adopt a kid and they will scream that you cannot deny them this right if two homosexuals can adopt kids.
| They're not sterile, Bill. |
You love to beat this dead horse. I never said they were. I said two homosexual couples cannot reproduce with each other.
Says reality.
| It is self-evident bigotry on your part, since you can't keep your story straight. |
It is not bigotry to point out reality and you are just confused.
| Then you should stop arguing. |
I have been letting reality argue for me this whole time. It's you that wants to argue against reality.
| For claiming things are self-evident which clearly are not in order to justify your obvious distaste for the way some people have sex, I'll call you a massively hypocritical bigot. |
As with the rest of your ramblings, just because Dave says it don't make it just-so.
| Where is your evidence that you know the mind of the creator of the universe? |
I present to you the reality of human reproduction. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Drummer wanted
