Gays get the bum wrap

a13antichrist said:
It most certainly is a complete fuck-up. The aim of evolution is to help things reproduce faster. Homosexuality does not help this. Therefore it's a fuck-up, pure and simple. There can be no doubt about this.
Click to expand...


i was taught evolution isnt necessarily better just different
 
freako104 said:
i was taught evolution isnt necessarily better just different
Click to expand...

Partly true. Evolution moves certain aspects forward with lots of trial & error. If something doesn't work, it's discarded. If it is better than the previous, it's brought into full production while the earlier is discarded. So, when it works better than before, it's better.
 
Gonz said:
Disolve a right? It never was a right. It required special legislation to make it so. Instaed, it's a mandate by the state..
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that I'm in Canada, and so was the petition. Up here...it's a right (not to be descriminated against because of sexual preferences), and therefore gays can't be refused anything that's allowed by heterosexuals, including adoption. This petition was trying to create a loophole in that right in order to stop gay couples from adopting.
 
Didn't they pass a law? Just a petition? Seems incredibly simplistic with such a volitile subject.
 
its supposed to be. EOE= equal opportunity. no discrimination for sexual orientation,creed,colour, stuff like that
 
Gonz said:
Didn't they pass a law? Just a petition? Seems incredibly simplistic with such a volitile subject.
Click to expand...

Not a law...it was a constitutional debate. That, and gay marriage, went to the supreme court and then Parliment in order to maintain the constitution. That petition wouldn't have been strong enough to change it...just muddy the waters some.

I know that it's a lame-duck petition. BUT...doesn't stop it from being wrong.
 
outside looking in said:
paul, if we made a donation on your behalf to give you access to the spellchecker, would you use it?
Click to expand...


hell no!!!

dyslexic and proud

but not to offend your sensabilities, I shall endevor to check my spelling much more carefully.

(how much is that spell checker, I really should look into it)
 
Gonz said:
ris, where did I say that homosexuals were "wrong"? You're assuming things. There is a difference between an error in the genes (happens all the time) & being wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

there in part lies much of what i was driving at with regard terms. the idea of somehting being in error means to be incorrect or wrong. homosexuality as described as an error can easily be interpreted as being 'wrong'. you may not use the word explicitly but to a large number of people it feels inherent in the terminology.

if you prescribe that homosexuality as notion is an error to nature then do not be surprised to find people considering you to be bigoted or anti-homosexual.
 
What's wrong with being anti-homosexual? I'm anti-cancer as well... I wish there was none. Doesn't mean I have any less respect for individuals with cancer or their rights, I just think that it is a problem that needs a cure. Isn't it possible to be against the problem without being against the people?
 
ris said:
if you prescribe that homosexuality as notion is an error to nature then do not be surprised to find people considering you to be bigoted or anti-homosexual.
Click to expand...

So. on top of being close minded, these people are also judgemental? Isn't that against the touchy-feely code or something?

I write precisely what I mean (in most cases). Read nothing further into it & all will be well.
 
Gonz said:
marriage is not a right
Click to expand...


It isn't? (not an arguement, just a question)

when we talk gay marriage in Canada, we are not talking religious unions, we are talking legal ones, the churchs can still make there own rules.
 
Nobody has the right to marriage, in any country. Once a suitable (or not) partner is found, it's not likely they'll be turned down, unless the union would cause a law to be violated. Hence, most gay mariages may be in violation of certain state statutes. Same with underage marriages, incestuous marriage, etc.
 
paul_valaru said:
It isn't? (not an arguement, just a question)

when we talk gay marriage in Canada, we are not talking religious unions, we are talking legal ones, the churchs can still make there own rules.
Click to expand...


its somewhat the same here. you can get married in a church and whatnot or a courthouse if you dont want a church. churches can make their own rules, but they have to follow laws as well. but they dont have to allows gay marriage.



whats the problem with same sex marriages? ive been the same sex for years and ive been married(George Carlin)
 
a13antichrist said:
It most certainly is a complete fuck-up. The aim of evolution is to help things reproduce faster. Homosexuality does not help this. Therefore it's a fuck-up, pure and simple. There can be no doubt about this.
Click to expand...

Not really. There are examples (the bonobo) of social reasons for homosexuality/bisexuality.

Evolution has no explicit goal such as "reproducing faster". That is only one of many, many ways evolution is expressed through adaptation. Otherwise humans would be having a million offspring like cockroaches. Our success is much more complicated than reproductive prowess.

Marriage is not a right? What about those certain inalienable rights? The comparison to underage is invalid since full rights apply to adults. Incest is not illegal, just foolish.

Maybe, by this logic, we need more laws controlling, marriage, child birth, etc based on genetic and behavioral "desirability". Sounds like communism to me. Unless it harms idividuals or society as a whole, I don't see why gay marriage should even be a concern of the government. At the legal level marriage is a contract subject to common law and should be viewed without consideration to gender of the respective participants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top