Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Boss]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

 

[ChrisL]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you expect homosexuals to not have sex with other homosexuals? Based on what belief system?

 

[Boss]

A pedophile is a person who is ATTRACTED to prepubescent children, not a person who has had SEX with a prepubescent child.

Nope... Pedophilia is the attraction to... Pedophile is describing a person who has acted on that attraction in a sexual way.

wrong Boss. words have meanings.

Definition of PEDOPHILE

pedophile
play
noun pe·do·phile \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
Popularity: Top 30% of words
Simple Definition of pedophile

• : a person who has a sexual interest in children

Right.... a sexual interest. Not a fantasy or thought... but a sexual interest.

Words DO mean things... you are 100% correct.

 

[Boss]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you expect homosexuals to not have sex with other homosexuals? Based on what belief system?

When did I say I expected that???

 

[ChrisL]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you expect homosexuals to not have sex with other homosexuals? Based on what belief system?

When did I say I expected that???

I'm asking you. So answer. Yes or no.

 

[ChrisL]

A pedophile is a person who is ATTRACTED to prepubescent children, not a person who has had SEX with a prepubescent child.

Nope... Pedophilia is the attraction to... Pedophile is describing a person who has acted on that attraction in a sexual way.

wrong Boss. words have meanings.

Definition of PEDOPHILE

pedophile
play
noun pe·do·phile \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
Popularity: Top 30% of words
Simple Definition of pedophile

• : a person who has a sexual interest in children

Right.... a sexual interest. Not a fantasy or thought... but a sexual interest.

Words DO mean things... you are 100% correct.

I think heterosexual men and women are fantasizing and thinking about the OPPOSITE sex. Lol.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you really and truly not understand the difference between gay marriage and a pervert in the bathroom? Gay marriage affects no other persons' rights. being a pervert in the bathroom certainly does.

Now if you want to make an argument that homosexuals are more likely to be perverts in the bathroom, thats another topic entirely, but gay marriage has ZERO to do with perverts in the bathroom. What if, and this is likely, studies concluded that heterosexual married men are most likely to be perverts in the bathroom and thus liberals declared we should outlaw heterosexual marriage?

See, you gotta think these things through my man.

 

[Boss]

[
If they are attracted to someone, why SHOULD they not act upon their urges (speaking of ADULTS only, of course)? If an adult man or woman is attracted to another adult man or woman, why should they not be able to pursue their own happiness?

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[
If they are attracted to someone, why SHOULD they not act upon their urges (speaking of ADULTS only, of course)? If an adult man or woman is attracted to another adult man or woman, why should they not be able to pursue their own happiness?

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

 

[Boss]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you really and truly not understand the difference between gay marriage and a pervert in the bathroom? Gay marriage affects no other persons' rights. being a pervert in the bathroom certainly does.

Now if you want to make an argument that homosexuals are more likely to be perverts in the bathroom, thats another topic entirely, but gay marriage has ZERO to do with perverts in the bathroom. What if, and this is likely, studies concluded that heterosexual married men are most likely to be perverts in the bathroom and thus liberals declared we should outlaw heterosexual marriage?

See, you gotta think these things through my man.

It has nothing to do with difference between being gay and being a pervert in the bathroom. You people are just hell-bent on warping and twisting anything you can into homophobia. It's really pissing me off because it's not what I've said.... ever!

Read the fucking post again, ass chump! I said that I am opposed to establishing laws based on our sexual behaviors because it LEADS TO things like perverts in the ladies room.

 

[Boss]

[
If they are attracted to someone, why SHOULD they not act upon their urges (speaking of ADULTS only, of course)? If an adult man or woman is attracted to another adult man or woman, why should they not be able to pursue their own happiness?

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

Well okay... point made... I concede. Take your complaint up with Chris, it was her question.

I think you have a convoluted view on gay marriage... by allowing it, you've established that laws can be made to accommodate our sexual desires. Equal protection disallows you from prohibiting things like adoption by gay married couples. It also disallows you from prohibiting similar accommodations for other sexual proclivities under the law, like you allowed for gays. It's a dangerous precedent and it will have ramifications and consequences you're not comfortable with.

 

[ChrisL]

[
If they are attracted to someone, why SHOULD they not act upon their urges (speaking of ADULTS only, of course)? If an adult man or woman is attracted to another adult man or woman, why should they not be able to pursue their own happiness?

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

Well okay... point made... I concede. Take your complaint up with Chris, it was her question.

I think you have a convoluted view on gay marriage... by allowing it, you've established that laws can be made to accommodate our sexual desires. Equal protection disallows you from prohibiting things like adoption by gay married couples. It also disallows you from prohibiting similar accommodations for other sexual proclivities under the law, like you allowed for gays. It's a dangerous precedent and it will have ramifications and consequences you're not comfortable with.

And why do you care why someone else decides to get married? Whether that be for sex or children or financial reasons? How does any of this effect YOU?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I never said anything about what they SHOULD do. I asked why you think they should not, excluding all of your extenuating circumstances. Is it because you don't think gay people should have gay sex? Is that direct enough for you?

I didn't say anything about what they SHOULD do... I listed reasons why I wouldn't pursue a relationship where there was mutual sexual attraction... that's what you asked me for. I didn't give you "extenuating circumstances" but reasons why I wouldn't pursue a sexual relationship.

And I don't understand why you are trying so hard to imply that I care about what kind of sex other people have... can you explain that to me?

Do you oppose gay "marriage?"

I do oppose gay marriage... has nothing to do with me disapproving of homosexuality or what kind of sex people have. For me, it's all about protecting traditional marriage and not establishing laws based on sexual behaviors. I think that's a dangerous precedent... leads to perverts hanging out in the ladies rooms.

Do you really and truly not understand the difference between gay marriage and a pervert in the bathroom? Gay marriage affects no other persons' rights. being a pervert in the bathroom certainly does.

Now if you want to make an argument that homosexuals are more likely to be perverts in the bathroom, thats another topic entirely, but gay marriage has ZERO to do with perverts in the bathroom. What if, and this is likely, studies concluded that heterosexual married men are most likely to be perverts in the bathroom and thus liberals declared we should outlaw heterosexual marriage?

See, you gotta think these things through my man.

It has nothing to do with difference between being gay and being a pervert in the bathroom. You people are just hell-bent on warping and twisting anything you can into homophobia. It's really pissing me off because it's not what I've said.... ever!

Read the fucking post again, ass chump! I said that I am opposed to establishing laws based on our sexual behaviors because it LEADS TO things like perverts in the ladies room.

You're getting pissed because your posts make no sense and no one knows wtf you mean .

Here, let me give you an example.

You say "I don't want laws based on sexual behavior" but then you go on to say you oppose gays being allowed to marry. Who , but the law, could even prevent them from marrying? So , obviously you support a law against gay marriage even though you claim you don't want laws based on sexuality. I'm sure what you meant was you don't want gay marriage legalized, but the fact is that it was legal until states started making it illegal. Meaning no laws were passed to make gay marriage legal. Quite the opposite, laws were passed making it illegal.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Between how much Chris agrees with me and the fact that she likes the butt sex, I'm really digging on this thread .

 

[Boss]

[
If they are attracted to someone, why SHOULD they not act upon their urges (speaking of ADULTS only, of course)? If an adult man or woman is attracted to another adult man or woman, why should they not be able to pursue their own happiness?

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

Well okay... point made... I concede. Take your complaint up with Chris, it was her question.

I think you have a convoluted view on gay marriage... by allowing it, you've established that laws can be made to accommodate our sexual desires. Equal protection disallows you from prohibiting things like adoption by gay married couples. It also disallows you from prohibiting similar accommodations for other sexual proclivities under the law, like you allowed for gays. It's a dangerous precedent and it will have ramifications and consequences you're not comfortable with.

And why do you care why someone else decides to get married? Whether that be for sex or children or financial reasons? How does any of this effect YOU?

Well, first of all because marriage is a sacred union between a male and female and an important foundation for the institution of family. I think it's culturally important for that to remain intact and respected as such. Two homosexuals should have every right to live together as as couple and they should enjoy all the same perks as a traditional married couple... but what they have is not a marriage. If they want to pretend it's a marriage, I am fine with that... have a wedding and cake... throw rice... go on a honeymoon... knock yourself out... I just opposed establishing marriage by law based on sexual behavior.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

Well okay... point made... I concede. Take your complaint up with Chris, it was her question.

I think you have a convoluted view on gay marriage... by allowing it, you've established that laws can be made to accommodate our sexual desires. Equal protection disallows you from prohibiting things like adoption by gay married couples. It also disallows you from prohibiting similar accommodations for other sexual proclivities under the law, like you allowed for gays. It's a dangerous precedent and it will have ramifications and consequences you're not comfortable with.

And why do you care why someone else decides to get married? Whether that be for sex or children or financial reasons? How does any of this effect YOU?

Well, first of all because marriage is a sacred union between a male and female and an important foundation for the institution of family. I think it's culturally important for that to remain intact and respected as such. Two homosexuals should have every right to live together as as couple and they should enjoy all the same perks as a traditional married couple... but what they have is not a marriage. If they want to pretend it's a marriage, I am fine with that... have a wedding and cake... throw rice... go on a honeymoon... knock yourself out... I just opposed establishing marriage by law based on sexual behavior.

Translation

You DO favor marriage laws based on both sexuality and religion.

If two men are living together, why do you care one way or the other whether they call their arrangement marriage or not? It's actually none of your business.

 

[Boss]

You say "I don't want laws based on sexual behavior" but then you go on to say you oppose gays being allowed to marry. Who , but the law, could even prevent them from marrying? So , obviously you support a law against gay marriage even though you claim you don't want laws based on sexuality. I'm sure what you meant was you don't want gay marriage legalized, but the fact is that it was legal until states started making it illegal. Meaning no laws were passed to make gay marriage legal. Quite the opposite, laws were passed making it illegal.

You're wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

Here is my original question. Boss

This thread is 14 pages long, I've not read every single post you've made dear. I replied to the post you made to ME... you asked me: What is the reason why two adults who are sexually attracted to one another should NOT pursue a relationship?

I quoted your post when I responded. And reading what you're posting now, it's a completely different question. I don't think anyone should not be able to pursue their own happiness.

Oh, I disagree . There are certainly times when a person should be prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Terrorists are happy when they are killing people. I prefer that be stopped. Rapists, yeah I'd like them to be stopped too. Drunk drivers? wife abusers? Child abusers, etc etc....

The key is, it should only be stopped when it harms or affects the rights of others. That's why I support gay marriage but I don't know about gays adopting. There are children who need to be protected.

Well okay... point made... I concede. Take your complaint up with Chris, it was her question.

I think you have a convoluted view on gay marriage... by allowing it, you've established that laws can be made to accommodate our sexual desires. Equal protection disallows you from prohibiting things like adoption by gay married couples. It also disallows you from prohibiting similar accommodations for other sexual proclivities under the law, like you allowed for gays. It's a dangerous precedent and it will have ramifications and consequences you're not comfortable with.

And why do you care why someone else decides to get married? Whether that be for sex or children or financial reasons? How does any of this effect YOU?

Well, first of all because marriage is a sacred union between a male and female and an important foundation for the institution of family. I think it's culturally important for that to remain intact and respected as such. Two homosexuals should have every right to live together as as couple and they should enjoy all the same perks as a traditional married couple... but what they have is not a marriage. If they want to pretend it's a marriage, I am fine with that... have a wedding and cake... throw rice... go on a honeymoon... knock yourself out... I just opposed establishing marriage by law based on sexual behavior.

And why does what your definition of marriage matter to some stranger that doesn't know you? Besides, maybe they LOVE each other?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You say "I don't want laws based on sexual behavior" but then you go on to say you oppose gays being allowed to marry. Who , but the law, could even prevent them from marrying? So , obviously you support a law against gay marriage even though you claim you don't want laws based on sexuality. I'm sure what you meant was you don't want gay marriage legalized, but the fact is that it was legal until states started making it illegal. Meaning no laws were passed to make gay marriage legal. Quite the opposite, laws were passed making it illegal.

You're wrong.

The next time I'm wrong, will be the first time I'm wrong.

You absolutely favor a law making gay marriage illegal. You have said so yourself. Then you claim I'm wrong when I say you do?

Come on man

Let's try this. Let's forget the gay marriage part and just focus on this.

Should you at any point be able to use force of law to make someone stop doing something that does not harm anyone else? Yes or no?

 

[Boss]

If two men are living together, why do you care one way or the other whether they call their arrangement marriage or not? It's actually none of your business.

I don't care what THEY call it... they are free to call it whatever they like. I am opposed to the state sanctioning it through the law.

But look... why are we having this debate? Are you longing for the days of the past where you could bash people over the head and call them bigots and homophobes? Waxing nostalgic a bit? What's the deal? You GOT your Gay Marriage in all 50 states.

We'll now get to see all the ramifications and consequences you were warned would happen as a result. Trannies in bathrooms is one example... polygamy is just around the corner... then it's on to child marriage and marrying your pets. It's not going to stop with the gays getting hitched... that is the tip of the iceberg. Sexual identity and behavior is now a protected class under the Constitution. Thanks a lot!