"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[LittleNipper]

How do they not accept the consequences of their own actions? They don't need your approval, they just want the same rights. Nothing more.

Their form of sex cannot produce children. They are not entitled to children simply because they wish them. I would say that they are not accepting the consequences of their actions. They want it ALL! Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. Experimentation with the lives and proper upbringing of children in the ballance is very wrong.

 

[DaveISBG]

Why? If they aren't related, then what exactly are you trying to prove by pointing out events that were also going on at the time? You're making absolutely no sense.

That’s exactly my point The person making the statement Presidents that believe in creation are some how having a negative affect on the state of the Nation, was the one making the correlation. Using a chart that only shows one aspect of the health of the Nation is disingenuous. By showing a broader look of that the state of the nation during the low point in the chart under, under Jimmy Cater a theistic evolutionist, the premise, times are better under evolutionist, doesn’t hot water.

 

[Army of Juan]

Anal sex is very dangerous to any individual. Oral sex is very dangerous to the oral health of an individual. This is the only types of sex available to homosexuals.

LOL’d@dis

My wife has done both of these (several times) and she seems fine to me AND she’s not even gay.

I’ve taken a college level Human Sexuality course and I don’t recall ever hearing about oral being dangerous.

Also, I don’t have children and my wife has been fixed so I can’t have any with her and yet I married her anyway. Believe it or not, it isn’t a pointless marriage.

 

[Parmenio]

You sound angry and disturbed. Children need parents and not simply caretakers. They need role models to emulate. Children need to understand what true love is and not see it as sex. Homosexuality does not provide any of that. It is sex for sex sake.

I don't think that post sounds angry. Hm. I'll work on that.

However, to the point, you are arguing that there is harm done when homosexuals have children. You further assert that homosexuals do not love each other. All of this with no proof. How is it that I am the angry and disturbed one when you are asserting things with no proof? How do you define gay people as not being able to truly love eachother? Just blind assertion?

How are gay people unable to function as parents? What about them not having an opposite sex partner prevents them from being a parent?

Everything in your statement is just your assertions with no actual evidence tying them to reality. In summary, just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

To refute your non-evidence I give you the power of Wiki!!!

They cite all sorts of awesomeness, but feel free to cherry-pick and ignore the fact that just about every childwelfare org in the US supports gay parenting.

 

[Belk]

I do worry about their, health, mental, and spiritual well-being. The lie is that people need sex to survive. The lie is that people need sex to be happy. The lie is that diviant behavior patterns do not exist with regard to sex, as long as both parties are agreeable? I see wanting children and living life any which way to suit one's own expectations; as being rather self-centered, egotistical, and without regard for the children one claims that they LOVE.

Please explain how living their life as they choose somehow invalidates their love for a child. It would seem to me that living how they want and not giving in to the demands of a bunch of prudes sets a good example.

 

[Belk]

Their form of sex cannot produce children. They are not entitled to children simply because they wish them. I would say that they are not accepting the consequences of their actions. They want it ALL! Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. Experimentation with the lives and proper upbringing of children in the ballance is very wrong.

They are unable to have children on their own so they should not be allowed to adopt? What on earth kind of logic is that?

 

[LittleNipper]

LOL’d@dis

My wife has done both of these (several times) and she seems fine to me AND she’s not even gay.

I’ve taken a college level Human Sexuality course and I don’t recall ever hearing about oral being dangerous.

Also, I don’t have children and my wife has been fixed so I can’t have any with her and yet I married her anyway. Believe it or not, it isn’t a pointless marriage.

They don't talk a whole lot about party'n being harmful at most colleges either. They generaly stick to those topics that make one seem sophisticated. Right now, the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is seemingly rather fashionable among the university crowd. Is is healthy to drink out of a clean toilet? Maybe, but how clean can it be and does one always wash before sex after urinating and sweating all day? Doesn't sound so sophisticated, does it? What causes those ulcers and gum problems anyway? Somethings still make people want to vomit when they come to think about it.....

 

[Schroeder]

Arguing that relationships are just for reproduction is not just an argument against same sex marriage, it's also against sterile individuals and suggests that after a women reaches menopause then she can't be married anymore. After all, men can have children until we die. And all sex has the innate risk of spreading and STD, that is if one of the participants has an STD. It's quite impossible for one to be spread when neither has the bacteria or virus. And not all evolutionists say that life is just about reproduction, that is like saying that all gravitists think that life is about staying as close to the ground as possible and suggesting that jumping or flying is just wrong. As for comparing sex to murder, here's a hint, as long as the sex is consensual it's fine, murder infringes on another's rights. Consenting sex between two adults (regardless of their biological sex) does not infringe on either participant's rights. And you do have to right to say that it's wrong, just like you have a right to say that women are inferior to men and that black people should go back to Africa. But that doesn't mean that what you are saying is just.

And a mini-rant about political correctness for a moment. Yes, some people take it too far. Nobody has the right to not be offended. However, that was not why it started. It started because there are derogatory terms that are used to describe minority groups. I could list some here, but I don't want to activate the censor. The point was to stop the dehumanization of those groups of people.

i ddint mean to imply relationship was ONLY for reproduction. BUT it is one of its main reasons. consensual sex is not always fine. my brother had consensual sex until of course he got HIV. Which i believe means now if you have consentual sex BUT forget to tell them you have aids is considered a crime, because it will possible lead to there death. Yep that is why political correctness started and i am afraid it is now being used by those it was intended to help, thyey now are hiding behind it to do the same that was done to them. But this is how our society and or world view lives. selfishly.

 

[LittleNipper]

They are unable to have children on their own so they should not be allowed to adopt? What on earth kind of logic is that?

A child needs two parents. A male role model and a female role model. That is what comes naturally and that is what generally works the best. Why should a child (who has already lost his parents for whatever reason) settle for what can only be described as third best---- if "best" can be used at all..... It's all about the CHILD's welfare. It isn't about what the "would be parents" want. And I might remind you that a "prude" is an offensive term. And offensive terms aimed at the person and not at a behavior are something people trying not to hurt others should be aware of.

 

[Schroeder]

Comparing a consensual same-sex relationship to MURDER now are we? If the differences between the two need to be pointed out to you then I suppose there is no point in discussing it..

you obviously didnt get the point. I think the comparison was in HOW they felt about doing it whether it was right or wrong.

 

[PsychMJC]

you obviously didnt get the point. I think the comparison was in HOW they felt about doing it whether it was right or wrong.

\
Well thats moving things around a bit.. and it still does nothing for your argument. I still fail to see the point in bringing it up.. please elaborate on why someone being perfectly content with killing another person has ANYTHING to do with people being perfectly content to love and devote their lives to another person of the same sex?

 

[PsychMJC]

Anal sex is very dangerous to any individual. Oral sex is very dangerous to the oral health of an individual. This is the only types of sex available to homosexuals.

Evidence? Extent of harm done? Wishful thinking I know, but I'll continue to ask for support of such statements..

 

[PsychMJC]

Children need to understand what true love is and not see it as sex. Homosexuality does not provide any of that. It is sex for sex sake.

You seem to be claiming that same-sex relationships have nothing to do with love or affection for their partners... its just about gettin' it on... I know I sound like a parrot in here but... anything to back that belief up?

 

[LittleNipper]

You seem to be claiming that same-sex relationships have nothing to do with love or affection for their partners... its just about gettin' it on... I know I sound like a parrot in here but... anything to back that belief up?

One does not need sexual contact to show love and affection. One does need to have same sexual contact in order to be practicing homosexuality.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evidence? Extent of harm done? Wishful thinking I know, but I'll continue to ask for support of such statements..

Torn anal tissue ----- Stretched anal muscles.

 

[flatworm]

One does not need sexual contact to show love and affection. One does need to have same sexual contact in order to be practicing homosexuality.

Likewise, one needs to have opposite-sex sexual contact in order to be practicing heterosexuality.

Your point?

 

[Naraoia]

One does not need sexual contact to show love and affection. One does need to have same sex contact in order to be practicing homosexuality.

Ok, so you're saying that two women who love each other (love as in head over heels, etc) aren't homosexuals until they've done a little petting? Are random guy X and his girlfriend also not heterosexuals until they've gone to bed?

 

[flatworm]

Torn anal tissue ----- Stretched anal muscles.

Hint: Not all gay couples practice penetrative anal sex. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that goes double for lesbians. Many heterosexual couples do, on the other hand, engage in anal sex.

So anal sex != homosexuality.

Try again.

 

[NOTW]

One does not need sexual contact to show love and affection. One does need to have same sexual contact in order to be practicing homosexuality.

This logic is extremely arrogant.
They do not need to have sexual contact in order to be viewed as homosexuals, all it takes is an attraction for the same sex.

 

[NOTW]

Hint: Not all gay couples practice penetrative anal sex. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that goes double for lesbians. Many heterosexual couples do, on the other hand, engage in anal sex.

So anal sex != homosexuality.

Try again.

I was just about to say, anal sex and oral sex are not restricted only to homosexuals. Heterosexuals do participate in the same forms of sex.