Remove this ad
First  Prev  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/26/12

DomFortress wrote:

If prison, thinking, and drugs can turn people into homosexuals, or so you claimed while you ignored all scientific findings that had proven otherwise, then gay marriage wouldn't be the actual cause for people turning gays by your baseless claim.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.
Why, that's as stupid as claiming the opposite is true, that heterosexual marriage is what made us straights. Now talk about your screwed up paranoia.

Also, your country isn't the whole world. My hometown Canada had legalized homosexual marriage since 2004, and nothing like you claimed ever happened. Other nations which had legalized homosexual marriage even earlier than mine also didn't turned out like you feared. So your homophobia is unjustified, regardless on how your military had once considered funding a 7.5 million dollars chemical weapon R&D project, to create a "gay bomb" back in 1994.

Margaret Cho on the "gay bomb"
A 7.5 million dollar investment by the U.S. Air Force to develop a gay bomb that would transform soldiers - our enemies' soldiers - into lustful homosexuals. Only Margaret can give this real story the twist it deserves. Boom!


#1: You are soooo stupid. Lala is not talking about right now. Lala is talking about the future. 2004 is only 8 years ago!

#2: Lala does not even live in the U.S.A!

#3: You did not even reply to Lala's other points so what are you doing here!
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

If prison, thinking, and drugs can turn people into homosexuals, or so you claimed while you ignored all scientific findings that had proven otherwise, then gay marriage wouldn't be the actual cause for people turning gays by your baseless claim.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.
Why, that's as stupid as claiming the opposite is true, that heterosexual marriage is what made us straights. Now talk about your screwed up paranoia.

Also, your country isn't the whole world. My hometown Canada had legalized homosexual marriage since 2004, and nothing like you claimed ever happened. Other nations which had legalized homosexual marriage even earlier than mine also didn't turned out like you feared. So your homophobia is unjustified, regardless on how your military had once considered funding a 7.5 million dollars chemical weapon R&D project, to create a "gay bomb" back in 1994.

Margaret Cho on the "gay bomb"
A 7.5 million dollar investment by the U.S. Air Force to develop a gay bomb that would transform soldiers - our enemies' soldiers - into lustful homosexuals. Only Margaret can give this real story the twist it deserves. Boom!


#1: You are soooo stupid. Lala is not talking about right now. Lala is talking about the future. 2004 is only 8 years ago!

#2: Lala does not even live in the U.S.A!

#3: You did not even reply to Lala's other points so what are you doing here!


Then if you claim it is too early for DomForetress to make predictions about the future about homosexuality. Isn't it in that case also too early for you to make any claims for the future? In my eyes it's pretty hard to predict what kind of effects accepted gays will have on society (in my eyes it wont be negative), and thus any party should refrain from doing or trying so.
To either claim the effect would be positive or negative is baseless.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

It seems I should have elaborated. My bad.

The reason it is a stupid argument is because homosexuality is not something just anyone will do just for the heck of it.
If someone is not attracted to someone of the same gender, they will not have sex with anyone of the same gender. Simple as that.

Proof of this can be seen in the scandinavian societies. Here, homosexuality is already accepted. It is legal for gays to marry and they can have children.
According to you, that means that there is rampant homosexuality going on everywhere.
But guess what, it's not. Because people will not have sex with someone of the same gender if they're not attracted to them.
Proof that your hypothesis is wrong.

So there. What does Lala think of that?


That's why Lala told you that anyone can be a homosexual and it's evidenced by prisoners behavior. Homosexual marriage was only accepted like 2 years ago so Lala thinks you're stupid if you think you can measure the differences already. If children are brought up thinking it is totally normal for love between two homosexual couples then they will be influenced. Lala knows that anyone can be a homosexual even if it is mainly caused by nature (not proven yet). Because drugs causes people to be homosexual too.


Still doesn't make sense. While same-sex marriage wasn't formally "legal" in Norway until the "Gender-neutral marriage" law in 2009, it has been technicly legal and also legal in the minds of the people ever since same sex registered partnerships was legalized all the way back in 1993 and gay couples could get married in Oslo Tinghus (Town Hall). Almost an entire decade before the first state in the US had such a thing.
Denmark legalized same sex civil union all the way back in 1989, an entire generation ago.

And ever since then, it has been okay to be gay in Scandinavia in the public eye. That's more than two decades ago. Over 20 years.
(You can read about an american gay couple's visit to norway from 1999 here: http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/norway/gay-norway-a-modern-civilization/ )
Also, in case you didn't know, scandinavian countries are notorious for their liberal and easy going attitude towards sexuality in general.
FAR more so than the united states.

So to summarize: In scandinavia, being gay has been okay for an entire generation already. We are also far more liberal about sexuality than the United States.
And yet despite that, there is no homosexual "epidemic" rampant in our societies. Just acceptance of people for being who they are.

And when we, who are so liberal, don't have rampant homosexuality, it certainly will not happen in the notoriously conservative United States.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

amersfoort wrote:

Then if you claim it is too early for DomForetress to make predictions about the future about homosexuality. Isn't it in that case also too early for you to make any claims for the future? In my eyes it's pretty hard to predict what kind of effects accepted gays will have on society (in my eyes it wont be negative), and thus any party should refrain from doing or trying so.
To either claim the effect would be positive or negative is baseless.


#1: Lala proved that nurture can influence homosexuality. He did not prove it cannot. 8 years is not enough to prove anything because children do not even have sex at 8 years old.

#2: Homosexual activity spreads harmful diseases. How is that not negative. How is that baseless.


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Still doesn't make sense. While same-sex marriage wasn't formally "legal" in Norway until the "Gender-neutral marriage" law in 2009, it has been technicly legal and also legal in the minds of the people ever since same sex registered partnerships was legalized all the way back in 1993 and gay couples could get married in Oslo Tinghus (Town Hall). Almost an entire decade before the first state in the US had such a thing.
Denmark legalized same sex civil union all the way back in 1989, an entire generation ago.

And ever since then, it has been okay to be gay in Scandinavia in the public eye. That's more than two decades ago. Over 20 years.
(You can read about an american gay couple's visit to norway from 1999 here: http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/norway/gay-norway-a-modern-civilization/ )
Also, in case you didn't know, scandinavian countries are notorious for their liberal and easy going attitude towards sexuality in general.
FAR more so than the united states.

So to summarize: In scandinavia, being gay has been okay for an entire generation already. We are also far more liberal about sexuality than the United States.
And yet despite that, there is no homosexual "epidemic" rampant in our societies. Just acceptance of people for being who they are.

And when we, who are so liberal, don't have rampant homosexuality, it certainly will not happen in the notoriously conservative United States.


You are so stupid. Marriage is completely different. Marriage includes celebrations and will make the children think it is a good thing.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Then if you claim it is too early for DomForetress to make predictions about the future about homosexuality. Isn't it in that case also too early for you to make any claims for the future? In my eyes it's pretty hard to predict what kind of effects accepted gays will have on society (in my eyes it wont be negative), and thus any party should refrain from doing or trying so.
To either claim the effect would be positive or negative is baseless.


#1: Lala proved that nurture can influence homosexuality. He did not prove it cannot. 8 years is not enough to prove anything because children do not even have sex at 8 years old.

#2: Homosexual activity spreads harmful diseases. How is that not negative. How is that baseless.


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Still doesn't make sense. While same-sex marriage wasn't formally "legal" in Norway until the "Gender-neutral marriage" law in 2009, it has been technicly legal and also legal in the minds of the people ever since same sex registered partnerships was legalized all the way back in 1993 and gay couples could get married in Oslo Tinghus (Town Hall). Almost an entire decade before the first state in the US had such a thing.
Denmark legalized same sex civil union all the way back in 1989, an entire generation ago.

And ever since then, it has been okay to be gay in Scandinavia in the public eye. That's more than two decades ago. Over 20 years.
(You can read about an american gay couple's visit to norway from 1999 here: http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/norway/gay-norway-a-modern-civilization/ )
Also, in case you didn't know, scandinavian countries are notorious for their liberal and easy going attitude towards sexuality in general.
FAR more so than the united states.

So to summarize: In scandinavia, being gay has been okay for an entire generation already. We are also far more liberal about sexuality than the United States.
And yet despite that, there is no homosexual "epidemic" rampant in our societies. Just acceptance of people for being who they are.

And when we, who are so liberal, don't have rampant homosexuality, it certainly will not happen in the notoriously conservative United States.


You are so stupid. Marriage is completely different. Marriage includes celebrations and will make the children think it is a good thing.


Well, since it's never been prooved that homosexuality is the source of many diseases (wich it is not) to say that that is the main negative effect is baseless.

So if you want to proove homosexuality is bad, then you first need to proove what diseases are caused/spread through homosexuality, and only homosexuality, and not straight sex. If you cannot, then your post was indeed baseless, however if you can it isn't and I will apologize for calling it that way in that case.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Still doesn't make sense. While same-sex marriage wasn't formally "legal" in Norway until the "Gender-neutral marriage" law in 2009, it has been technicly legal and also legal in the minds of the people ever since same sex registered partnerships was legalized all the way back in 1993 and gay couples could get married in Oslo Tinghus (Town Hall). Almost an entire decade before the first state in the US had such a thing.
Denmark legalized same sex civil union all the way back in 1989, an entire generation ago.

And ever since then, it has been okay to be gay in Scandinavia in the public eye. That's more than two decades ago. Over 20 years.
(You can read about an american gay couple's visit to norway from 1999 here: http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/norway/gay-norway-a-modern-civilization/ )
Also, in case you didn't know, scandinavian countries are notorious for their liberal and easy going attitude towards sexuality in general.
FAR more so than the united states.

So to summarize: In scandinavia, being gay has been okay for an entire generation already. We are also far more liberal about sexuality than the United States.
And yet despite that, there is no homosexual "epidemic" rampant in our societies. Just acceptance of people for being who they are.

And when we, who are so liberal, don't have rampant homosexuality, it certainly will not happen in the notoriously conservative United States.


You are so stupid. Marriage is completely different. Marriage includes celebrations and will make the children think it is a good thing.


Did you not read what I wrote properly?
It was legal in the minds of the people. Meaning the public attitude to it was the same as if it was genuine marriage. And these unions DID involve formal ceremoniesand celebrations.

If you read the story on the link I gave you, you will even see a part where a kid tells his uncle that he thinks he might be gay because he only likes playing with other boys.
Silly and childish reasoning of course, but it shows how the general attitude towards it was, even when it was not formal marriage.

So your argument there doesn't hold up.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

amersfoort wrote:

Well, since it's never been prooved that homosexuality is the source of many diseases (wich it is not) to say that that is the main negative effect is baseless.

So if you want to proove homosexuality is bad, then you first need to proove what diseases are caused/spread through homosexuality, and only homosexuality, and not straight sex. If you cannot, then your post was indeed baseless, however if you can it isn't and I will apologize for calling it that way in that case.



t MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).
t While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf


Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either "active" or "passive", since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. A simplified method for recording sexual behaviour--a "sexual behaviour record (SBR)"--can be of value in determining the sites to be investigated and as a basis for further epidemiological questioning. Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. Similarly, granuloma inguinale, condylomata acuminata, and amoebiasis may be spread from the bowel of the passive homosexual contact. In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045908/

That is not even all. You seem to not understand Lala's point. There is a difference between encouraging and endorsing homosexual behavior (marriage), and simply making it legal. Straight couples have the choice to have anal sex but it is not encouraged through society and education as though it is normal.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote properly?
It was legal in the minds of the people. Meaning the public attitude to it was the same as if it was genuine marriage. And these unions DID involve formal ceremoniesand celebrations.

If you read the story on the link I gave you, you will even see a part where a kid tells his uncle that he thinks he might be gay because he only likes playing with other boys.
Silly and childish reasoning of course, but it shows how the general attitude towards it was, even when it was not formal marriage.

So your argument there doesn't hold up.


So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote properly?
It was legal in the minds of the people. Meaning the public attitude to it was the same as if it was genuine marriage. And these unions DID involve formal ceremoniesand celebrations.

If you read the story on the link I gave you, you will even see a part where a kid tells his uncle that he thinks he might be gay because he only likes playing with other boys.
Silly and childish reasoning of course, but it shows how the general attitude towards it was, even when it was not formal marriage.

So your argument there doesn't hold up.


So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.


Absolutely not.
The kid said he thought he was gay because he didn't understand the concept of gay properly. He thought gay meant having male friends, because sexuality was foreign to him.

Also, here is a quote, since you're obviously too lazy to read for yourself:

"my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him."

This shows that the kid only recently found out that his uncle was gay. So the uncle hadn't been preaching "gay propaganda" or anything like that to the kid before.
So that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he misunderstood the concept of being gay.
Maybe he did grow up to be gay, and maybe he grew up to be straight. We don't know.


A friend of mine once told me a similar story, and he grew up to be straight. Nothing is proven, other than that people are free to express themselves for who they are without fear of ignorant judgement.

30855 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Southern Californ...
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote properly?
It was legal in the minds of the people. Meaning the public attitude to it was the same as if it was genuine marriage. And these unions DID involve formal ceremoniesand celebrations.

If you read the story on the link I gave you, you will even see a part where a kid tells his uncle that he thinks he might be gay because he only likes playing with other boys.
Silly and childish reasoning of course, but it shows how the general attitude towards it was, even when it was not formal marriage.

So your argument there doesn't hold up.


So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.


I have to take Lala's side here I think. (I have nothing against homosexuals though)
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Absolutely not.
The kid said he thought he was gay because he didn't understand the concept of gay properly. He thought gay meant having male friends, because sexuality was foreign to him.

Maybe he did grow up to be gay, and maybe he grew up to be straight. No one knows.


A friend of mine once told me a similar story, and he grew up to be straight. Nothing is proven, other than that people are free to express themselves for who they are without fear of ignorant judgement.


Lala has no idea what you are trying to prove. Why are you telling Lala this story?
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Absolutely not.
The kid said he thought he was gay because he didn't understand the concept of gay properly. He thought gay meant having male friends, because sexuality was foreign to him.

Maybe he did grow up to be gay, and maybe he grew up to be straight. No one knows.


A friend of mine once told me a similar story, and he grew up to be straight. Nothing is proven, other than that people are free to express themselves for who they are without fear of ignorant judgement.


Lala has no idea what you are trying to prove. Why are you telling Lala this story?


I'll post this again, since I was obviously too late the first time.

"my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him."

This shows that the kid only recently found out that his uncle was gay. So the uncle hadn't been preaching "gay propaganda" or anything like that to the kid before.

And why did I tell you that story? To show that it was simply a matter of misunderstanding the concept of being gay.
Misunderstanding that concept does not mean you will grow up be gay.







Mangasurf
I have to take Lala's side here I think. (I have nothing against homosexuals though)

Read my response. I didn't prove Lala's point even the slightest.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Well, since it's never been prooved that homosexuality is the source of many diseases (wich it is not) to say that that is the main negative effect is baseless.

So if you want to proove homosexuality is bad, then you first need to proove what diseases are caused/spread through homosexuality, and only homosexuality, and not straight sex. If you cannot, then your post was indeed baseless, however if you can it isn't and I will apologize for calling it that way in that case.



t MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).
t While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf


Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either "active" or "passive", since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. A simplified method for recording sexual behaviour--a "sexual behaviour record (SBR)"--can be of value in determining the sites to be investigated and as a basis for further epidemiological questioning. Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. Similarly, granuloma inguinale, condylomata acuminata, and amoebiasis may be spread from the bowel of the passive homosexual contact. In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045908/

That is not even all. You seem to not understand Lala's point. There is a difference between encouraging and endorsing homosexual behavior (marriage), and simply making it legal. Straight couples have the choice to have anal sex but it is not encouraged through society and education as though it is normal.


I must apologize, because I did not know that in the homosexual community STD's are much more common. So your point definatly isn't baseless.
However, there is still the issue of safe-sex, STD's and HIV can be prevented by using condoms, so if awareness and eduction about safe-sex would be more intense, we might be able to see a reasonable decrease in these statistic.

But I don't think that ever since we've been accepting homosexuals, the amount of homosexuals has been increasing. I think the only thing that has increased is the amount of people comming out as homosexuals. (I do think bi-sexuality has increased though)
So I don't think this fact poses a major threath to the rest of society, and that this threath can be reduced in a relative small amount of time.

I must admit, I am quite shocked, your proof has certainly made me think about my point, however, I still think that homosexuals should be accepted. Not doing that because of health reasons to me seems immoral, But it certainly is an issue that needs to be addressed.

174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

I'll post this again, since I was obviously too late the first time.

"my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him."

This shows that the kid only recently found out that his uncle was gay. So the uncle hadn't been preaching "gay propaganda" or anything like that to the kid before.

And why did I tell you that story? To show that it was simply a matter of misunderstanding the concept of being gay.
Misunderstanding that concept does not mean you will grow up be gay.



Mangasurf
I have to take Lala's side here I think. (I have nothing against homosexuals though)

Read my response. I didn't prove Lala's point even the slightest.


Lala is asking what that is proving???


amersfoort wrote:

I must apologize, because I did not know that in the homosexual community STD's are much more common. So your point definatly isn't baseless.
However, there is still the issue of safe-sex, STD's and HIV can be prevented by using condoms, so if awareness and eduction about safe-sex would be more intense, we might be able to see a reasonable decrease in these statistic.

But I don't think that ever since we've been accepting homosexuals, the amount of homosexuals has been increasing. I think the only thing that has increased is the amount of people comming out as homosexuals. (I do think bi-sexuality has increased though)
So I don't think this fact poses a major threath to the rest of society, and that this threath can be reduced in a relative small amount of time.

I must admit, I am quite shocked, your proof has certainly made me think about my point, however, I still think that homosexuals should be accepted. Not doing that because of health reasons to me seems immoral, But it certainly is an issue that needs to be addressed.


That is Lala's point!!! Lala was saying the entire time that homosexuals can do anything they want but it is ridiculous to encourage it!!!
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:



#1: Lala proved that nurture can influence homosexuality. He did not prove it cannot. 8 years is not enough to prove anything because children do not even have sex at 8 years old.

#2: Homosexual activity spreads harmful diseases. How is that not negative. How is that baseless.



You are so stupid. Marriage is completely different. Marriage includes celebrations and will make the children think it is a good thing.
You didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level. All the while hormonal changes happens even before one's birth, thanks to the scientific discipline known as fetal origins study.

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born
Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.
Furthermore, hormonal changes during youth development doesn't require sexual behaviours as a trigger, when in fact it's the other way around. Your baseless and unrealistic claim makes no scientific sense.

Also, any STD's that homosexuals can contract through same-sex intercourse, the same can happen to heterosexuals alike through straight sex. But that didn't stop our species to double our population in less than 50 years. Thus once again you made no scientific sense.

Finally, straight marriages within the US had actually transgressed the ritual into some sorta monstrous reality TV celebrations. Cases in point: Bridezellas and The Littlest Groom.

NYS Senator Diane Savino speaks on the Marriage Equality bill
Senator Savino speaks on Marriage Equality Albany, NY December 2, 2009
So from the look of things straight marriages were already messed up even before the legalization of gay marriage. And you made no historical scientific sense.
First  Prev  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.