What utter bollocks. lol! It's called moral relativism. Doesn't mean it's acceptable just because a minority want it to be acceptable.
In moral relativism there are no absolute rights and wrongs. (Taken from the Wikipedia article).
Murder is an absolute wrong. Rape, paedophilia... I could go on, but I've already nullified your point. Society's growing conscience is not moral relativism.
How on earth can you say people like me - you have no clue where I am coming from and have just lumped me in with the 'fundies'. People like me were against abolishing slavery? You are clearly moronic. Also, comparing abolishing slavery to acceptance of homosexuals is completely redundant. I will explain if I really have to... just say the word.
I'm going to need a better refute than "you're a moron" and "YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME". Comparisons of slavery were drawn from the similar reactions of people like you, who expected the whole world to end because of a new idea. Thus, not redundant.
I didn't actually see that quote, and I certainly didn't write it.
L2R. Attempting to throw your scrawny weight around when you haven't even read the source material for our reactions?
Sure. I'm the moron.
Go talk to a child that is being raised by homosexuals - go on, I dare you. Listen to the parrot fashion verbiage that results from the crap that is being forced down their throats about tolerance, and two mommies is good, or two daddies is fun.
Go talk to a child that is being raised by fundamentalists. "You're going to burn in Hell for being gay" and "everyone is bound for Hell unless they believe what we believe".
Given a choice between the two, hearing that a child loves their parents is probably the one I'd prefer to hear.
Anyone with an iota of compassion for CHILDREN will see the repurcussion.
Indeed. Kids who don't think the way you think - O NOEZ!
While studies are not conclusive as the subject matter is still so new, it is thought that studies are being skewed in the favor of homosexuals:
"researchers who found no differences sometimes skewed their interpretation of results to suit their own leanings. "Ideological pressures," they concluded, "constrain intellectual development in this field
. Because anti-gay scholars seek evidence of harm, sympathetic researchers defensively stress its absence."
This is quite hilarious. Just to point out to you exactly where you've gone wrong, I've added italics. This quote claims that anti-gays are ALSO attempting to skew evidence in their favour.
The words 'EPIC' and 'FAIL' are being thrown around by a lot of people reading this :]
Not surprisingly, the studies that show favorable results of same sex parenting are performed and reported by homosexual advocacy groups. Go figure.
And I'm willing to bet an arm that the studies showing disfavourable results are being performed and reported by anti-gays.
So what's your point?
This is hilarious - I have to address this. You are comparing the rights of people with naturally black skin to homosexuals. Nah, doesn't work.
Civil rights are civil rights. People with 'naturally' black skin wanted them, people with 'naturally' different orientations want them. In Northern Ireland, Catholics protested for civil rights during the Troubles - people with different religions wanted them.
Yeah. Works.
Wrong again, sunshine. Not once have I pulled the "you're gonna burn in hell" card. How about this - I think you're bigoted because you are not tolerant of Christianity, which has been kicked out of schools, just for starters.
I'm tolerant of all religions. I'm intolerant of fundamentalists and I'll admit it happily.
Oh, and since I went to a convent school, I can safely say that religion hasn't been removed from schools. Though, I must ask - what difference does it make? Children of many different religions should be able to be educated together.
And yet the homosexuals are forcing their lifestyles down the throats of children in schools. Where's the tolerance there?
You really do not understand the phrase "citation needed", do you? Where's this proof? The only basis for your assumption is paranoia.
By the way, there are a helluva lot of homosexual children going through school right now and being bullied for it, and they would LOVE to see this 'forcing down the throats' you speak of.
You can't even talk about Jesus in school without having the ACLU on top of you. If you want tolerance, then it has to go all ways, big shot.
No, sweetie, it doesn't. Would you like me to be tolerant of murder? Robbery? Any other number of absolute crimes that I mentioned earlier?
Tolerance isn't defined as 'going all ways'. I won't tolerate people who look down on me for any reason, and I'm not the one who needs to learn tolerance in that scenario.
Homosexual relationship marriages have a statistically higher divorce rate than heterosexuals. And here's your citation:
"There is a high rate of divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within eight years and lesbian couples 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples".
From a homosexual website - how about than then.
http://www.loveandpride.com/InformationCenter/Tips.aspx?categoryId=5
Grew said that the low rate so far of gay divorce - known as 'dissolution' of a civil partnership - and the long time spent together by many couples who form one, 'shows that gay people are treating them with due solemnity and respect. Generally, they take them more seriously than many people who get married. The people who go for it are older, have been together longer and have more committed relationships. That's why we won't see the 40 per cent or 50 per cent divorce rates we see in heterosexual marriages,' he said
This link: to the Guardian article also contains statistics at the bottom. A year after gay marriages were introduced, and the total number of couples divorcing (hetero- and homosexual) actually went down.
What does this tell us? Firstly, that the UK is not Sweden. Secondly, one example is not enough to extrapolate the future, or even the entire picture.
Absolute bollocks. Put two homos on an island - they will never - read NEVER - have children.
That depends. Is there a science lab on that island?
By the way, if a hetero couple can't have kids, does that make their marriage null and void...?
Yeah they are.
In mid-20th century Britain, where male homosexuality was illegal until the Sexual Offences Act 1967, to openly identify someone as homosexual was considered very offensive and an accusation of serious criminal activity. Additionally, none of the words describing any aspect of homosexuality were considered suitable for polite society. Consequently, a number of ironic euphemisms were used to hint at suspected homosexuality. Examples include "Such a nice man," "Such a gay man," "Such beautiful handwriting," all with the stress deliberately on the otherwise completely innocent adjective.
By 1963, the new sense of the word "gay" was known well enough by the straight community to be used by Albert Ellis in his book The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Man-Hunting.
Taken, again, from Wikipedia. It's really amazing how arguments like "yeah they did" and "moron!" just don't stand up to scrutiny, huh?
I did not, moron, I rationalized how using blood donor refusal as a slight against a homosexual lifestyle is completely futile.
No, you cherrypicked which example of intolerance you were going to try and refute. In addition, your refutation went along the lines of "I'm English, so the US won't take my blood". This is not the same as somebody who was born and raised in a country that, even with proof, seems to think homosexual blood is tainted.
The amount of times I've had to yell HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT CONTAGIOUS is really quite astonishing.
You'll reap what you sow. And it won't cost me a thing.
Yup. It won't cost you your marriage, your faith, your family, your society... but why don't you hate gay marriage 'cause Sky Daddy says it's wrong?
In fact, go stone gays.
And then start stoning adulterers and all the other people Sky Daddy wants you to stone, as set forth in the Buy-Bull.
This is my last response. I gave you a chance, but you still won't quantify your reasoning beyond "BECAUSE" and "MORON!". You fail at debating, and you're not so hot at plain old arguing, either.
Go cry to Sky Daddy and tell him to send me to Hell. I can't wait to get there.
