Not really Buck..no
How the right is actually killing free speech
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that was almost a rebuttal, murdoch.
well, actually, no it wasn't.
but at least you're all upset, and that makes me happy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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?
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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...
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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)
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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?
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
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.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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
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
Well-Known Member
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
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
Yes they do.
You're just willing to promote perversion in an attempt to strike back at the right you so hate.