St. Mary's gets sued

[cityboy]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
I can't believe you're equating this with race. Do you mean to tell me that homosexuals have been through what African-Americans have had to go through? Or Asians?

Were gays enslaved? Were they rounded up during WWII and put in camps for "protection?" The wrongs done to minorities in this country are far worse than the inconvenience of choosing the gay lifestyle.

To my way of thinking, lifestyle choices do not rate the same as those situations thrust upon our lives by the accident of birth.

I'm sorry you are wrong here. Gays were rounded up and put in concentration camps just like the Jews in WWII. Just like the Jews received the Star of David, homosexuals received a Pink Triangle. For someone who is trying to make a "valid point" you should get your facts straight!

[emmpeedee]

Originally posted by cityboy
homosexuals received a Pink Triangle.

what a cute accessory

[Nanny Pam]

Originally posted by emmpeedee
what a cute accessory

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/smiley...smiley-974.png

Can I have a pink triangle, too?

[T.Rally]

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Ok, for T. Rally that says you are not born gay. I am an identical twin. My brother is straight, has a wife and four kids. I on the other hand am gay. Always have been, always will be. I don't recall ever making the "decision" to be gay. I just know that I am, and will be. So, even though I don't believe in religion, and I do believe more in Darwinism, fullfil my curiosity on how you know that we are not born gay or straight. I mean, I am the closest thing to having a clone.

Alright, this is my final post on the subject.

Its not for me to fullfill your curiosity. You have fingers and you have a computer, fullfill your own curiosity. You won't like what you find. For every study that says homosexuality is a trait there has got to be a fifty that say otherwise. As far as Dawinism goes, it is survival of the species. Survival of the strongest best models of a species by, ahem, reproduction. So, if one is born gay then one must be a weaker model of the human race because that individual will not reproduce. If one isn't born gay then one is just a deviation from what is natural.

Darwinism is not a homosexual's friend. Do you see the paradox here?

Originally posted by T.Rally
News flash folks;

A person is not born gay! Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. It is not 'normal. On the contrary, it deviates (note the term-as in a sexual deviate) from the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule.

Quit believing the myths the pro gay establishment wants you to believe.

Um. Why did you quote me? I don't believe either way whether a person is born or adapts or just decides to be gay, and I really don't care.

You don't know either.

"Quit believing the myths..." What myths? You've shown no proof or disproof of either side.

Who wants to be in the norm if the norm means being the average dunce?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
So you don't think we are better off physically and mentally than say the 1500's or even the 1950's?

I'm as pro-technology and for societal evolution as the next person but as long as you have the same greedy religiously led retards in power it makes little to no difference.

Originally posted by tlatchaw
Can you see why I made the statement earlier about standards going to hell in modern society? If nothing is normal, then no behavior can be construed to be correct or incorrect. How far will you let society slip before you realize something is wrong.

Commander Funk wants me to get over it. I don't think he appreciates the fact that society is falling apart incrementally. It seems to me that modern America has many parellels with ancient Rome.

I view accepting homosexuality as a gain in morals, not a loss of them.

I don't see how me rubbing one off instead of going to a prostitute is any more moral than the other. Prostitution wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't sent into the streets and run lawlessly instead of safely and rationally with rules and regulations.

In other words, I decide my own morals. Keeps yours to yourself, please. In fact, I think that having children in this overcrowded, dying world is irresponsible and thus immoral, but I don't go around going shame, shame to all the parents.

It seems to me that the only things that makes society fall apart are corporations, government owned by the corporations, and the coddling that we do of absolutely everybody without making them take responsibility for their own little lives.

A morally corrupt society must eventually collapse on itself because it has lost its standards.

" Begging the Question
( petitio principii )
Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion."

With those sort of conclusions I can probably get away with saying that Christianity is what caused the fall of the Roman empire so maybe we should snub that little party out. We don't want the american empire to be destroyed by those heathens!

The sad part is that I really do sorta feel that way when I can't even see a boob for 2 seconds without nutty parents groups and christian groups crappin themselves and wanting big government to clean up the baby feeders.

Originally posted by T.Rally


The purpose of sex is to reproduce, the purpose of the pleasure involved is to bond, the purpose of the bond is to create a mutual co-existance between the man and woman so that their children are given good nurturing- nurturing required by both parents of both genders.

I dunno about you but some of my sexcapades have had little to do with bonding or procreation and more to do with gettin a good screw.



Not with all animals do both parents stick around, but they still get pleasure from the sex so what was the point of the bond?

(I still don't believe either way. i just question inconsistencies on both sides)

[Nickel]

Originally posted by cmdrfunk

Not with all animals do both parents stick around, but they still get pleasure from the sex so what was the point of the bond?

Aside from humans, bonobos and dolphins are the only animals that have sex for pleasure

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by T.Rally
Look man, I'm not interested in some study conducted by Gay Weekly or something. For now I'll stick with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Says something about reproducing and survival of the species. You should check it out, funny he doesn't mention homosexuality.

The purpose of sex is to reproduce, the purpose of the pleasure involved is to bond, the purpose of the bond is to create a mutual co-existance between the man and woman so that their children are given good nurturing- nurturing required by both parents of both genders.

Homosexual sex does not equal reproduction. Homosexual bonds do not create a mutual co-existance as each gender has its inherent duties.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

If homosexuals want to get together then let them. According to your take if they are not able to reproduce then they will eliminate themselves.

And where did the sex come into the institution of marriage. They merely want to be married. No one ever said anything about sex.

You pessimistic types. What would happen if gays were allowed to marry? I suppose the world would implode according to you.