Why can't we speak out against Homosexuality without being bombarded?

I should be able to disagree and speak out against unnatural acts.

So if someone (a 57 year old guy) loves someone else (a 12 year old girl) its none of iour damn business?

Random question, but, is disagreeing with homosexuality without being malicious or offensive being a homophobe?

Or do we just live in an incredibly PC world..

We didn't need to know that you had HIV and I fail to see what it has to do with this thread. Thanks for contributing anyway.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Pedophilia is a different factor to homosexuality. Two fully grown men/woman have fully grown comprehensive abilities and thus can make rational decisions. A 12 year old has not fully developed and so cannot.

Your "what if/next" argument is flawed and stupid as it can literally lead anywhere.

I'm pretty sure at least a quarter of 12 year olds have more developed, rational decision making abilities than at least a quarter of 16, 18, 35 or 50 year olds.

I'm pretty sure at least a quarter of 12 year olds have more developed, rational decision making abilities than at least a quarter of 16, 18, 35 or 50 year olds.

I'm pretty sure at least a quarter of 12 year olds have more developed, rational decision making abilities than at least a quarter of 16, 18, 35 or 50 year olds.

There's a lot of people with legitimate views on homosexuality and it's effect on our society.

If you're a straight male you can longer disagree with gay marriage, homosexuality in front of children, ramming homosexuality down our throats on soaps, teaching homosexuality in school you're vilified for having a differing opinion to the new Liberal control freaks.

I should be able to disagree and speak out against unnatural acts, two men cannot have children, anal sex is not normal. It is contrary to human nature. If everybody was gay humans would go instinct eventually.

I'm mainly speaking about gay marriage here, teaching gay stuff in schools, that's mostly what i disagree with, yet you're a bigot and a homophobe if you do

We can label people 'weirdo's' 'freaks' 'losers' on a daily basis, yet if we lable those words to somebody because they choose to date men, which is unnatural as two men are not supposed to be together by nature, it's wrong somehow :/ If a grown man is attracted to children, people are disgusted and everybody wants him in prison, so why can't I find homosexuality the same? (not that i think they should go to prion for being gay)

Here's some other 'unatural acts' you might want to reconsider:

- Medical intervention during your birth.
- Modern agricultural practices.
- Technological comforts from your washing machine to your computer, car, central heating, insulation, etc.
- Government and it's services making your life easier.
- Police intervention to protect you from stronger assailants against your person and/or rights.

Etc.

Unnatural, meaning that something is being used in a way that was not intended or doesn't fall in with its purpose. All of the things you've listed are not unnatural in this sense.

Medical intervention is about correcting flaws that have happened in an otherwise natural phenomena. Agricultural practices, again, only benefit and strengthen otherwise natural processes. Technological comforts make our lives easier, but in no way are they somehow teleologically inconsistent. Etc Etc. Sexual organs also have clear purposes from a biological standpoint. Your anus exists to release waste from your body, not to provide for sexual penetration.

Can you provide me with some legitimate evidence which shows the need for both a mother and a father? When you can do that you can claim that there is some kind of harm otherwise 'depriving' them of that is not relevant.

lol, right i need to prove that having a mother and father is good for a child? is this a joke?

No I asked for you to prove that children need both a mother and a father. You need to show the necessity of having parents of both genders. Otherwise this 'deprivation' is not necessarily there.

how can studies have conclusively shown that robbing a kid of a father or mother has no negative impact, when gays making children with anonymous donors is a recent phenomenon

this is nothing more than allowing people to ruin other peoples lives because people of the same characteristic were abused in the past and no more than other groups have throughout history. like the jews, because they were persecuted in the holocaust they are now allowed to go and steal Palestinian land and Palestinian homes, similarly gays are now allowed to be selfish and deprive children of a mother or father

Because researchers know what they're doing. Sperm donors may be new but adoption isn't and there are enough adults that have been raised by gay couples and there are enough children being raised by gay couples to research the issue.

Children do not have their lives ruined by being raised by Gay parents, insisting so simply shows how little you know about the subject and how obvious your prejudice colours your perception.

The establishment and existance of Israel and its neverending cluster**** of a conflict with Palestine is a) completely unrelated, b) in comparable to gay rights and c) so much more complicated than you clearly think it is.

what do you mean by necessity, if they don't have a mother or father, then they're going to die? that's obviously not the case, a mother or father are not oxygen

adoption by gays is just as new, anecdotal evidence by someone who was raised by gay parents proves nothing.

you're clearly biased. I've already said that i have no problems with gays, athiests go on about themselves for being so clever as they call for anything which dosen't cause others no harm, when there are thousands of studies which describe the effect of children not being brought up by their biological parents.

israel is compeltely connected. all zionists champion gays being allowed to rob kids of a parent

Adoption by gay people is not just as new, and the evidence is NOT anecdotal, if it was it wouldn't be in peer-reviewed journals (they're very particular about that sort of thing).

My "bias" comes from actual evidence. You clearly do have problems with gay people otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to bitch when they're allowed to do something straight people can do no questions asked. "children not being brought up by their biological parents" is such a vague description and so broad that its meaningless and is a pathetic attempt to bury relevent topics.

The bolded bit is the stupidest thing I've seen you post.

I mean show that they are needed for healthy development. If you want to claim that we are 'depriving' them of such a thing you need to show that it is somehow better than other arrangements inherently. Essentially you need to show its the best and therefore is necessary for children to grow up with the best possible outcome. Otherwise, this 'deprivation' is really moot.