The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

[Mgm84]

Originally Posted by WTF

Nature does not care who you procreate with. It does not care if it is your s/o or her/his best friend. In vitro has debunked your myth that gay couples can not have children. Fuck they can have children without in vitro. In fact a gay man can impregnate a gay woman. Oh my the things you learn on a hooker board!

You dodged the God question. Do you believe in God?

Yes nature does care, which is why you cannot procreate with John or any other male. You have hit rock bottom, but suprisingly you are subconsciously coming to the fact that only heterosexualism is beneficial. It's evident in every post that you make which turns out to disarm your own outlook.

What's wrong, WTF? You trying to change the subject? Go have your god talks elsewhere.

[Mgm84]

Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

You're trolling has reached whimsical and absurd levels. Single-celled organisms, plants, aphids, and whiptail lizards that can reproduce asexually, or frogs switching genders due to human experimentation have absolutely nothing to do with biology "proving" that homosexuality is harmful to humanity.

Use context clues bw. If you you actually think that I was referencing human experimention I pity you. The article focused on endocrine DISRUPTORS which causes the endocrine system to FUNCTION ABNORMALLY. Away from the natural intent of the endocrine system and its chemical balance. What is one result of these imbalances? HOMOSEXUALITY.

I give up. You and others have succeeded at making me loose all hope that people will see things for what they are.

Have at it guys.

[Yssup Rider]

Wow! PLEASE bring your azz into the Political Forum with this shit! You would be a great addition.

And we'd all get a shot at refuting your ignorant poppycock in the appropriate manner.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mgm84

Yes nature does care, which is why you cannot procreate with John or any other male.

Yet a gay woman and a gay man can procreate....with each other. You keep skipping over that simple fact. Marriage is a recent phenomenon in the grand scheme of things...you do not need marriage to procreate. Which really debunks your overall premise that gay marriage is bad. It is neither good or bad. It is up to each person to determine it's lot.

A web is great for a spider but bad for a fly.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

beneficial to evolution or non-beneficial to evolution is in fact subjective so there goes one of your baseless points. Let's look at the subjective history of your other baseless point of homosexuality is a psychological malfunction. Another subjective point. You sir need to learn the difference between objective and subjective.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/facult...al_health.html

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as "unnatural," which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day...


...Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

WTF, you are being soundly humiliated by MGM - you should quit embarrassing yourself.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

WTF, you are being soundly humiliated by MGM - you should quit embarrassing yourself.

I lost a pile of money once at the MCM!

I haven't lost shit to this y chromosome monkey.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Mgm84

I proved that homosexuality is harmful to humanity simply by presenting the purpose of evolution and biology (if you actually read you would understand this). If you can't come to an understanding that any direction other than the designed or intentional uses of asexual development, is abnormal and non beneficial, the issue is you and not I

Sadly you try to make sound logical arguments, but you let you bias get in the way.

Just a few points:

--No, you have NOT shown that homosexuality is harmful to humanity. I will spot you that simple logic implies (does not prove) that too large a homosexual proportion of humanity would lead to humanity's demise through lack of replacements. But because of various artificial insemination means, it is not proof.

--The exact same argument would apply to too large a percentage of the population remaining celibate. So you should be arguing for forced procreation, and likely for polygamy as the best way to propagate the "best" genetic material. The Reich would have admired your beliefs.

--You should be equally upset at any types of birth control, for once again it has the same end state of being "harmful to humanity".

--Your argument that humanity should willingly and with great devotion accept whatever the genetic tendencies are is quite at odds with the reality of human civilization, especially medicine. If you truly want to be blindly adherent to the probability distribution of genes then we should embrace physical defects as part of the "bettering" of the gene pool. No glasses, no treatments for cycle cell anemia, etc. The genes will be done!

You come across as an "intelligent design" creationist who is now fighting the "homosexuality is morally wrong on religious grounds but I want to disguise it as a secular argument" fight.

[Mgm84]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Sadly you try to make sound logical arguments, but you let you bias get in the way.

Just a few points:

--No, you have NOT shown that homosexuality is harmful to humanity. I will spot you that simple logic implies (does not prove) that too large a homosexual proportion of humanity would lead to humanity's demise through lack of replacements. But because of various artificial insemination means, it is not proof.



--The exact same argument would apply to too large a percentage of the population remaining celibate. So you should be arguing for forced procreation, and likely for polygamy as the best way to propagate the "best" genetic material. The Reich would have admired your beliefs.

--You should be equally upset at any types of birth control, for once again it has the same end state of being "harmful to humanity".

--Your argument that humanity should willingly and with great devotion accept whatever the genetic tendencies are is quite at odds with the reality of human civilization, especially medicine. If you truly want to be blindly adherent to the probability distribution of genes then we should embrace physical defects as part of the "bettering" of the gene pool. No glasses, no treatments for cycle cell anemia, etc. The genes will be done!

You come across as an "intelligent design" creationist who is now fighting the "homosexuality is morally wrong on religious grounds but I want to disguise it as a secular argument" fight.

Great! Maybe this will be worth it

Originally Posted by Old-T

[--No, you have NOT shown that homosexuality is harmful to humanity. I will spot you that simple logic implies (does not prove) that too large a homosexual proportion of humanity would lead to humanity's demise through lack of replacements. But because of various artificial insemination means, it is not proof.

Let's first get something established. Twisting and perverting words won't earn you a vantage point with me. Example. Blurring the line between "harmful effects" with "bring them to their demise", is disingenuous simply because it does not acknowledge that one is gradual and the other is more sudden. Harmful to humans can easily translate to over a span of 5 - 1k plus years. Most issues start off as minute matters. So rather than go into speculation paradise I rather identify it as "harmful to the collective".

Are you aware that Invitro is rather new? So before then my evolution assessment was truth?

Are you aware of the risks of invitro? Are you aware that the birth defect and the premature birth rate is higher? Do you know that they are less healthy? But of course for the sake of saving face we will ignore the utter selfishness of your "solution". Not only that, but both homosexuals WILL NOT be the biological parents, forcing the child into a situation of confusion on several different angles. Sounds like a selfish group of individuals to me.

Last, technology (artificial insemination) cannot invalidate a natural process. Trying to do so would be like professing that humans have surpassed cheetahs in speed by way of cars and airplanes. This is misinformation at its finest. Nice try.

[Mgm84]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Sadly you try to make sound logical arguments, but you let you bias get in the way.

Just a few points:

--No, you have NOT shown that homosexuality is harmful to humanity. I will spot you that simple logic implies (does not prove) that too large a homosexual proportion of humanity would lead to humanity's demise through lack of replacements. But because of various artificial insemination means, it is not proof.

--The exact same argument would apply to too large a percentage of the population remaining celibate. So you should be arguing for forced procreation, and likely for polygamy as the best way to propagate the "best" genetic material. The Reich would have admired your beliefs.

--You should be equally upset at any types of birth control, for once again it has the same end state of being "harmful to humanity".

--Your argument that humanity should willingly and with great devotion accept whatever the genetic tendencies are is quite at odds with the reality of human civilization, especially medicine. If you truly want to be blindly adherent to the probability distribution of genes then we should embrace physical defects as part of the "bettering" of the gene pool. No glasses, no treatments for cycle cell anemia, etc. The genes will be done!

You come across as an "intelligent design" creationist who is now fighting the "homosexuality is morally wrong on religious grounds but I want to disguise it as a secular argument" fight.

Originally Posted by Old-T

]
--The exact same argument would apply to too large a percentage of the population remaining celibate. So you should be arguing for forced procreation, and likely for polygamy as the best way to propagate the "best" genetic material. The Reich would have admired your beliefs.

--You should be equally upset at any types of birth control, for once again it has the same end state of being "harmful to humanity".

Attempting Celibacy is irrational and silly. It too is not good towards the evolutionary model. But the difference between the heterosexual foolishness of limiting procreation is the fact that it almost never prevents those people from procreating. And do you want to know a secret? More than 80 or 90% of those people who have or will subscribe to any birth control methods, procreate at some point. So their desires are null and void to NATURE because hormones become the judge and jury on the matter. Which is scientific fact. Only when one comes back to heterosexual activities do you see evolutions definition of the purpose of life happen.

So be careful with attempting to make correlations. Because the one you just stated was invalid.

[southtown4488]

arguing with this clown is pointless. I suggest everyone else simply ignore him and let him live in his own filth of hate and bigotry. Maybe him and Donald trump can get together and compare their hatred of immigrants and gays.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

arguing with this clown is pointless. I suggest everyone else simply ignore him and let him live in his own filth of hate and bigotry. Maybe him and Donald trump can get together and compare their hatred of immigrants and gays.

You realize that he is black and is therefore incapable of racism?

[Lena Duvall]

Originally Posted by DSK

You realize that he is black and is therefore incapable of racism?

It seems like southtown4488's comment was suggesting Mgm84 get together with Donald Trump to compare his seeming hatred for homosexual people with Donald Trump's hatred for immigrants. ALSO, xenophobia is the systemic bigotry that is directed towards immigrants which can be related to racism but is not the same as racism.

[Lena Duvall]

Originally Posted by Mgm84

Use context clues bw. If you you actually think that I was referencing human experimention I pity you. The article focused on endocrine DISRUPTORS which causes the endocrine system to FUNCTION ABNORMALLY. Away from the natural intent of the endocrine system and its chemical balance. What is one result of these imbalances? HOMOSEXUALITY.

I give up. You and others have succeeded at making me loose all hope that people will see things for what they are.

Have at it guys.

"Context clues" and information related to sex and gender in different non-human (animal) species is not grounded biological evidence that has anything to do with homosexuality among human beings. I would remind you that correlation isn't causation. But honestly, the links you shared don't even really indicate correlation. It seems like you were just having a jolly time typing "sex," "gender," and "animals" into a search engine.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by DSK

You realize that he is black and is therefore incapable of racism?

What does that statement have to do with anything? His arguments are dumb on their face value. It would not matter who he/she is (though most likely a "he"), he is a bigoted, angry person.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mgm84

Are you aware of the risks of invitro? Are you aware that the birth defect and the premature birth rate is higher? Do you know that they are less healthy? But of course for the sake of saving face we will ignore the utter selfishness of your "solution". Not only that, but both homosexuals WILL NOT be the biological parents, forcing the child into a situation of confusion on several different angles. Sounds like a selfish group of individuals to me.

Nature by definition is selfish. You seem to try and speak out of both sides of your ass and not be called out on it.

So what you seem to be griping about (selfishness) on one hand on the other you celebrate it.

This discussion is based on selfishness....your, mine and others. That is nature way of working out the gene pool. For some reason you are having a hard time grasping that concept. The mere fact that homosexuality has not been wiped out is indication that it does in fact belong in the gene pool. Think about that.