Lkr Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Do you support polygamy?The fact of the matter is, is that being gay is not "right"/"normal". I don't have a problem with it, but factually and biologically, it is not "right".http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1776611_o.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's not biologically correct. That isn't even debatable. Now, I don't care what gay people do, but to call it biologically normal/right is factually false.http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1776611_o.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 http://phys.org/news164376975.html TIL ECN knows more about biology than biologists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 http://phys.org/news164376975.html TIL ECN knows more about biology than biologists! That doesn't prove anything or even disagree with what I have said. Penis into vagina = biologically normal If you want to argue that people are programmed to be gay, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's biologically normal. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) That doesn't prove anything or even disagree with what I have said. Penis into vagina = biologically normal If you want to argue that people are programmed to be gay, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's biologically normal. .I'm sorry, but this disproves all credibility you've had left (which wasn't most) There are more cells in your body than animals on this planet. None of which have penises or vaginas. The amount of reproduction that is as you would call "penis into vagina" occurs .00000000001% of all reproduction. Take a biology class, take some notes, and come back. EDIT: Now I'm going to sit here and wait for you to try to explain how cells aren't apart of biology or some BS like that. Edited July 12, 2012 by trutrojan8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 About 99% of people are straight, of course being Gay isn't normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNotoriousBANG Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Grant Hill would not like where this topic is headed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry, but this disproves all credibility you've had left (which wasn't most) There are more cells in your body than animals on this planet. None of which have penises or vaginas. The amount of reproduction that is as you would call "penis into vagina" occurs .00000000001% of all reproduction. Take a biology class, take some notes, and come back. EDIT: Now I'm going to sit here and wait for you to try to explain how cells aren't apart of biology or some BS like that. This isn't even worth responding to. You're comparing ducks and other animals to human beings. . What's the amount of HUMAN reproduction that occurs when a penis goes into the vagina? I'd really like to hear from you. You're trying to use every living specie known to man to try and make your numbers look like they matter at all, which they don't at all because humans are not alike with much of the species you want to compare them to. Edited July 12, 2012 by EastCoastNiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Further proof that your linked article is a bunch of shit, and tries to stretch everything. For example, male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes," Bailey said. "But that is very different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan Albatross that can remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 You're comparing ducks and other animals to human beings. .sound familiar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) sound familiar? Not remotely similar, besides there being animals other than humans involved. I'm not comparing the intellect and way a human acts compared to a duck and many other species. My example, although far-fetched, was more about the choice to do what someone pleases. Again, not even similar. Edited July 13, 2012 by EastCoastNiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 You're going to say it's out of context and not in the same ballpark, but would you have a problem with people marrying pets? This isn't even worth responding to. You're comparing ducks and other animals to human beings. . lol works so perfect.. you answered ECN quite appropriately, ECN! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 lmao^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) lol works so perfect.. you answered ECN quite appropriately, ECN! Are you that mentally retarded? Not once did I compare a human to a pet. I provided a possible scenario about a human marrying another specie , but as usual, you can't read and try and take things out of context. Asking if you have a problem with a human marrying a pet is not COMPARING a human to a pet. Do you not know what a comparison is? You should have learned this sometime in elementary school. Edited July 13, 2012 by EastCoastNiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 com·pare [kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, nounverb (used with object)1.to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations. Was I comparing two different species? Nope, not at all. I was never comparing the dog to a human being. It was an example of something that would not be the "norm". (Being gay isn't they "norm"). 2.to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Did I ever say dogs/pets and humans were similar? Nope, I said the act of marrying a pet and being a gay person and getting married are both out of the normal social "norms". 3.Grammar . to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an adjective or adverb). Not comparing humans to a pet, but two situations that may not be considered normal/right by many. You should have learned this by your 40th birthday or however old you are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Not once did I compare a human to a pet. Asking if you have a problem with a human marrying a pet is not COMPARING a human to a pet. Comparing a human marrying a human to a human marrying a pet is, shockingly enough, comparing a human to an animal. Far-fetched idea, I know.. but true, nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Comparing a human marrying a human to a human marrying a pet is, shockingly enough, comparing a human to an animal. Far-fetched idea, I know.. but true, nonetheless. No, actually it is not comparing a human to a pet. It's comparing two different "out of the norm" (many people consider being gay as out of the norm) acts to one another. It is not comparing a human to a pet no matter how you want to illogically try and connect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) com·pare [kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, nounverb (used with object)1.to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations. Two gays marrying is like a person marrying a pet. 2.to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Two gays marrying is like a person marrying a pet. Edited July 13, 2012 by iMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Are you even reading what you are quoting? I compared two ideas, so you are correct on that. I said I was comparing two IDEAS that are out of the norm. I am not comparing a pet to a human in any way, shape, or form. Yes, the acts are similar because they are out of the norm. You really have reading comprehension problems, and want to try and twist a definition to fit your thought, which is incorrect. Comparing two out of the norm ideas does not mean I am comparing a human to a pet. If you can't understand that, you should go back to pre-school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 ^Alright, can you explain why you believe gays marrying would be considered "out of the norm" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 ^Alright, can you explain why you believe gays marrying would be considered "out of the norm" Yes, I will explain my thought on this. Personally, I do not think that gay people getting married is bad. I would probably support it IF the legalization of gay marriage goes through the proper process. I just want to clear that up, once again. Now, onto your question. Over the years, the media has really tried to make it sound like the majority of people support gay marriage, even the vast majority of people. However, time after time, voting shows that the majority of people do not support gay marriage. Many people do not believe that it is "normal" behavior to be gay. Now, I do think things are changing and that more and more people are starting to support gay marriage (I have no facts off the top of my head to back that claim up), but the votes have not indicated that. This is one article briefly talking about the actual support, or lack thereof, for gay marriage. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/will-obamas-support-of-gay-marriage-help-him-politically/state-by-state-americans-dont-want-gay-marriage Now, I've also read articles that state that most people do support gay marriage, but at the end of the day, that is not what the votes are showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I am not comparing a pet to a human in any way, shape, or form. Other than that they should have the same marriage rights, if the human is a homosexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I know people in MA that would have actually voted for the legalization of gay marriage had it gone to a proper vote, but many people do not like that it did not go through the proper process. That is what many people dislike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 President Obama is about to feel the wrath of an engaged nation. God is the author of marriage; government merely recognizes what God created. The vast majority of voters in this country (62 percent, according to a national survey for the Alliance Defense Fund) believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Their belief is heavily rooted in their faith traditions. In 2008, candidate Obama acknowledged that, as a Christian, "God's in the mix" when it comes to marriage. With his announcement this week, he has kicked people of faith in the gut and suggested they should abandon what God has told them and what every civilization since the dawn of mankind has known is best for society.So atheist gays shouldn't be able to marry just becasue a Christian government tells them their God doesn't advocate it? Hows that fair at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.