How the right is actually killing free speech

Padawanbater2 said:
Homosexual relationship occur in nature do they not?

A homosexual relationship is just as natural as a heterosexual relationship
Click to expand...

Homosexual relationships do occur in nature. In very low percentages. So do other "mutations".

Let's face it and cut through all the politically correct fucking bullshit: gays deserve civil rights protection, but their desires do not align with what nature intended for the survival of the species.

Only heterosexuals embody the intention of nature for survival of the species. And that's undeniable for all except those bent on perverting the truth.
 
UncleBuck said:
that's because you're a right winger who wants to kill free speech. see thread title, murdoch.

dumbass.
Click to expand...

It's you, tall butt-ugly Wendy's bathroom floor shitter, who wants to kill free speech.

Go back to college and get your degree, you failure dropout. And the next teenager you poke in a back room of a bar, at least tell her you couldn't keep your wife satisfied.
 
dabadaba said:
Not really Buck..no
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

When the zoo staff realized that Roy and Silo were both male, they tested them further by replacing the rock with a dummy egg made of stone and plaster. As it was "incubated real well" it occurred to the zoo keepers to give them the second egg of a mixed-sex penguin couple,[2] a couple which previously had been unable to successfully hatch two eggs at a time.[3] Roy and Silo incubated the egg for 34 days and spent two and a half months raising the healthy young chick, a female named "Tango".[4] When she reached breeding age, Tango paired with another female penguin called Tanuzi.[5][6] As of 2005, the two had paired for two mating seasons.[1]
 
TBoneJack said:
Homosexual relationships do occur in nature. In very low percentages. So do other "mutations".
Click to expand...

so is red hair unnatural too? should we kill the free speech of teachers by telling them not to teach about green eyed people?

TBoneJack said:
their desires do not align with what nature intended.
Click to expand...

tell me, how does nature go about intending things to happen?

can you cite me some college level literature about nature's intentions?

i was only there for 5 years, maybe i missed that part.
 
TBoneJack said:
It's you, tall butt-ugly Wendy's bathroom floor shitter, who wants to kill free speech.

Go back to college and get your degree, you failure dropout. And the next teenager you poke in a back room of a bar, at least tell her you couldn't keep your wife satisfied.
Click to expand...

that was almost a rebuttal, murdoch.

well, actually, no it wasn't.

but at least you're all upset, and that makes me happy.
 
TBoneJack said:
Homosexual relationships do occur in nature. In very low percentages. So do other "mutations".

Let's face it and cut through all the politically correct fucking bullshit: gays deserve civil rights protection, but their desires do not align with what nature intended for the survival of the species.

Only heterosexuals embody the intention of nature for survival of the species. And that's undeniable for all except those bent on perverting the truth.
Click to expand...
Pretty weak argument there

Infertile men and women occur in nature in very small numbers too, should we ban teaching that? To be logically consistent you'd have to

The fact that it takes both sexes to create a baby isn't a justification to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law or discriminate against them

Let's really face it here, bud.. you don't like homosexuality because of personal beliefs. There's nothing wrong with teaching a kid about different kinds of relationships
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Pretty weak argument there

Infertile men and women occur in nature in very small numbers too, should we ban teaching that? To be logically consistent you'd have to

The fact that it takes both sexes to create a baby isn't a justification to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law or discriminate against them

Let's really face it here, bud.. you don't like homosexuality because of personal beliefs. There's nothing wrong with teaching a kid about different kinds of relationships
Click to expand...

No sir, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Homosexuality is unnatural. And if it should be taught, then it should be taught as unnatural but equal in rights.

So it's better not to teach it at all. IMHO.
 
TBoneJack said:
No sir, my personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Homosexuality is unnatural. And if it should be taught, then it should be taught as unnatural but equal in rights.

So it's better not to teach it at all. IMHO.
Click to expand...
We've just established homosexuality is not unnatural, you admitted it yourself, homosexuality occurs in nature, that makes it natural. Are you looking for another word perhaps?
 
UncleBuck said:
that was almost a rebuttal, murdoch.

well, actually, no it wasn't.

but at least you're all upset, and that makes me happy.
Click to expand...

I'm not upset at all Buck. In fact, if you'd like to put our differences behind us and become friends, consider me willing to give it a try...
 
Padawanbater2 said:
We've just established homosexuality is not unnatural, you admitted it yourself, homosexuality occurs in nature, that makes it natural. Are you looking for another word perhaps?
Click to expand...

No Pada, I don't think so.

Just because something happens occasionally in nature doesn't make it intended as natural by the age old natural force of desire to procreate.

I don't hate gays. But I don't want to see their lifestyle advertised as just fine and dandy for our kids. It's much better for a person to be hetero than homo. And I think that's undeniable.
 
TBoneJack said:
No Pada, I don't think so.

Just because something happens occasionally in nature doesn't make it intended as natural by the age old natural force of desire to procreate.
Click to expand...
OK, so we're using arbitrary standards now not based on anything? Who says that since two homosexual people can't create a kid naturally they shouldn't be viewed as normal? Where is your condemnation in the same way towards infertile couples? They can't create a kid naturally either, yet not a peep from people like you. Why is that?
TBoneJack said:
I don't hate gays. But I don't want to see their lifestyle advertised as just fine and dandy for our kids. It's much better for a person to be hetero than homo. And I think that's undeniable.
Click to expand...
Give me one example of how anything is better for a person to be heterosexual than homosexual

You have zero evidence to back this up and you know it. It's a talking point from the right as more pseudojustification to discriminate against gay people (and you know that too)
 
Padawanbater2 said:
OK, so we're using arbitrary standards now not based on anything? Who says that since two homosexual people can't create a kid naturally they shouldn't be viewed as normal? Where is your condemnation in the same way towards infertile couples? They can't create a kid naturally either, yet not a peep from people like you. Why is that?

Give me one example of how anything is better for a person to be heterosexual than homosexual

You have zero evidence to back this up and you know it. It's a talking point from the right as more pseudojustification to discriminate against gay people (and you know that too)
Click to expand...

Infertile hetero couples are infertile for various reasons, none of them being that they want to deposit their sperm in a place where it can't create another of the species.

Which may be an intended dead end for gays: that they don't pass on their genes to the gene pool.

Seems logical.

Why else would they desire an outcome that guarantees their genes DO NOT end up in the gene pool?
 
UncleBuck said:
so is red hair unnatural too? should we kill the free speech of teachers by telling them not to teach about green eyed people?

tell me, how does nature go about intending things to happen?

can you cite me some college level literature about nature's intentions?

i was only there for 5 years, maybe i missed that part.
Click to expand...

You were in college for 5 years, and then dropped out without getting your degree?

You're a loser Buck. A total quitter. And an excuse-maker.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Give me one example of how anything is better for a person to be heterosexual than homosexual
Click to expand...

There's one example for every time a person becomes heterosexual. Their lives can proceed as nature intended. They can procreate with the opposite sex, so their children can have both a (real) mom (female) and (real) dad (male).

And their children won't need to read some fucked up book like "Heather Has Two Mommies" to understand the fucked up living situation of their parents.

Kids need a mom (female) and dad (male). And none of the fucked up 21st century babble speak will change that.
 
TBoneJack said:
Infertile hetero couples are infertile for various reasons, none of them being that they want to deposit their sperm in a place where it can't create another of the species.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what being infertile means

Again, why is the creation of life your basis for treating homosexuals equal? Elderly or celibate people don't have kids either, so why don't you treat them like they're "unnatural" like you do homosexual people?

Do you see why it's stupid to judge someone based on their ability or not to have a kid? You will be required to group homosexuals in with all these other people that can't have or choose not to have kids and now you're trying to make up all these different excuses for why one group of people is OK, but the other group of people is "unnatural". In other words, you're being intellectually dishonest
TBoneJack said:
Which may be an intended dead end for gays: that they don't pass on their genes to the gene pool.

Seems logical.

Why else would they desire an outcome that guarantees their genes DO NOT end up in the gene pool?
Click to expand...
Homosexual kids come from heterosexual parents

You think homosexual people choose to be homosexual so that their genes don't end up in the gene pool?

What the fuck are you even saying?

Homosexual people don't choose to be homosexual. Did you choose to be heterosexual?
 
Padawanbater2 said:
No they don't. You're just regurgitating bullshit right wing talking points

Homosexual marriage will become federally legal next month and you will just have to deal with it
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

You're just willing to promote perversion in an attempt to strike back at the right you so hate.
 
And please realize, I don't hate gays. I think gays should have civil rights protection, and be allowed to marry.

But their unnatural lifestyle should not be promoted as "equal" to heterosexual (i.e. natural) lifestyle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top