Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Angry?> Hardly. You guys aren't important enough for me to feel anger. The most I feel for you is pity.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << A society without heterosexual relationships would cease to exist in a generation. >> Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is advocating the abolishment of heterosexual relationships. How does the inclusion of a minority of gay relationships fit into this thesis? All of a sudden we presume the whole world turns gay?
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course not. It's simply a well worn technique for labeling the object of prejudice as "less than".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't think anyone here is advocating the abolishment of heterosexual relationships.> Of course not. All I'm saying is there is a reason that society encourages heterosexual unions, but doesn't encourage homosexual unions. It needs heterosexual unions to ensure it's future and stability; it doesn't need homosexual ones. Therefore, they are not the same.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It needs heterosexual unions to ensure it's future and stability; it doesn't need homosexual ones. Therefore, they are not the same." The Nazis felt that way about the Jews.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***All I'm saying is there is a reason that society encourages heterosexual unions, but doesn't encourage homosexual unions*** You speak of "society" as though it's some sort of a committee. It is not. And "society" over the centuries has "encouraged" all manner of wrong minded things. Such as slavery, capital punishment for religious infractions, race and gender based discrimination laws, etc... Society, as we are seeing clearly today, evolves. Thank goodness.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It needs heterosexual unions to ensure it's future and stability*** You continue to make this claim even after being proved incorrect by myself and another poster. Like a broken record.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You need to look up the word "proved". It does not mean what you think it means.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Oh brother." I know. It's amazing how apt the Nazi analogy is, isn't it? Any number of us here could post countless ways on how a childless union can benefit society through tangible and intangible ways, thereby leading to more stability within the community. But let's not let that get in the way of an imagined, convenient way to dismiss homos.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Hardly. You guys aren't important enough for me to feel anger. The most I feel for you is pity." And yet, you keep coming back. Who needs the pity now?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You need to look up the word "proved". It does not mean what you think it means.*** Yes, it does. We're not talking theory or opinion here, you continue stating a fact that is utterly incorrect. It's laughable how desperately you cling to every single bit of your dogma, even when you have been proven incorrect in utterly incontrovertible ways (like a few posts ago). You can't even think for yourself or even concede a minor point in which you were 100% wrong, you're so mired in your own rhetoric. I do pity you, Doug. It must be so small and narrow, that mind you live in.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's amazing how apt the Nazi analogy is, isn't it?> What it is is an illustration of how bereft of facts or logic your position. When all you can do is play the Nazi card, you've lost the debate. <Who needs the pity now?> Still you. I'm not the one invoking Hitler.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <you continue stating a fact that is utterly incorrect.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You mean that rock that he lives under???> There it is! Hat trick! Congratulations. Your mom must be proud.
Originally Posted By DAR For some reason this conversation made me think of this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Ew7nD9C4</a>
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Of course not. All I'm saying is there is a reason that society encourages heterosexual unions, but doesn't encourage homosexual unions. It needs heterosexual unions to ensure it's future and stability; it doesn't need homosexual ones. Therefore, they are not the same." Society doesn't "encourage" anything. There will always be heterosexual and homosexual relationships. There have been throughout history. They COEXIST. You do realze that the gay couples wanting to get married have already been in relationships, right? They have been coexisting alongside straights for generations. So, by allowing those gay couples to get "married", there won't be any newly "converted" gay people, it will be the ones that were there before. The straight couples "making babies" will still be doing that as well. I don't see how the argument of "the world wouldn't exist if all people were homosexual" applies at all, since it's never going to happen, and just doesn't fit our situation at all. Gay and straight relationships are parallel, and by acknowledging one exists, doesn't nulify the other one... What you've said could easily be applied to race, religion, etc. and sound just as bad, because it would be seen for what it is...intolerance. We are a diverse world, and there are many things that can exist at the same time without harming the others...
