Ultron

The problem is that nobody's ever proven this gene exists. That's not a lack of understanding on my part.

Sex is natural between men and women, that is. BTW I make the same arguement regarding abortion. It may be legal now but that's not to say that won't change for good. I don't have a problem with the arguement you are making, but time will tell if either change really happens.

Just so you know my viewpoint on the matter, I am opposed to homosexuality. But quite frankly if homosexuals work within the law for change that's well within their power.

What facts do you have to refute me here? Do homosexuals prefer members of the same gender or not? Answer the question.

Ultron

Actually morality is knowing right and wrong. People have different morals. What may be immoral to you might be moral to someone else.

Well I'm not going to argue religion in a homosexual thread. Carry on.

Jat

Originally posted by Ultron

Where is it?

If you have been following the different threads on this topic you would have seen it already.

That's a weak arguement though.

It is not an arguement. It is a statement of fact.

I have a feeling that you're only here to be contray and really don't have any valid arguements to present.

eldar1011

How can I unload the question? Let me try this...do you believe that since you are morally opposed to homosexuality, same-sex marriages should not be legally recognized? That is, outside of your moral opposition, how do same-sex marriages differ from heterosexual marriages on solely legal merits?

That's fine. But, if I may ask, can you present your moral opposition to homosexuality without betraying your religious belief or non-belief?

I'd rather not infer anything, which is why I'm asking you so many questions. I am honestly asking you for details about your moral opposition to homosexuality.

On a related not, I am sympathetic to non-religious people though because I see a lot of people attack others just because they don't belive in a higher power.

Jat

Originally posted by Ultron

Loaded question. First of all I don't believe homosexual activity is a civil right. I also don't think it's good. You may think it is, but I don't.

Then again you also probably are against heterosexual sex if it isn't for reproduction. Again, sex is the problem. It is ignorance about, like you've demostrated, which is.


I don't believe my morality supercedes all. But my voice is just as important as anyone elses.

Not when it is based on ignorance.

It may be for others but I don't argue on religious grounds.

The religious are really the only ones who find it immoral.

No I totally understand your reasoning. You can infer what you like about me based on my arguements but I see too many people attack me already based on what they think they know about me. I am sympathetic to religious people though because I see a lot of people attack others just because they believe in a higher power. I think the issues should have merit, personally.

Another thing you should learn is the difference between attacking and debating.

Ultron

Please humor me and give me a link to it. I can't even tell most people apart yet, much less the threads.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jat
[B]It is not an arguement. It is a statement of fact.

That the reason a pedophile had sex with a minor was age and opportunity? That's the REASON he's a pedophile?

Then why is it you're the one presenting age and opportunity as a reason for someone's sexual preference?

Jat

Originally posted by Ultron

The problem is that nobody's ever proven this gene exists. That's not a lack of understanding on my part.

Yes, it is a lack on your understanding. It is like saying that evolution isn't a fact because they haven't found the missing link yet, even though there is plenty of evidence that shows it is true.

Sex is natural between men and women, that is.

Homosexuality occurs in nature as well.

BTW I make the same arguement regarding abortion. It may be legal now but that's not to say that won't change for good. I don't have a problem with the arguement you are making, but time will tell if either change really happens.

The only way that abortions will ever be made fully ilegal is when the country is turned into a theocracy and women lose their rights and freedoms as human beings. In other words "the good old days" when women knew their place.

Just so you know my viewpoint on the matter, I am opposed to homosexuality.

That is like saying that you are against fish because they breath water and you don't. That it is not natural for you.

What facts do you have to refute me here? Do homosexuals prefer members of the same gender or not? Answer the question.

Irrelevant. Why do you perfer members of the opposite gender?

Jat

Originally posted by Ultron

Actually morality is knowing right and wrong. People have different morals. What may be immoral to you might be moral to someone else.

And atheists tend to have more positive morals than theists.


Well I'm not going to argue religion in a homosexual thread. Carry on.

Well theists have no problems bringing up their beliefs in said thread.

Jat

Originally posted by Ultron

Please humor me and give me a link to it. I can't even tell most people apart yet, much less the threads.

Male Sexual Attraction to Pubescent and Adolescent Girls:
A Matter of Evolution, Not Perversion.
---------------------------------------------------------
n.s. aristoff

[This is still copyritten. My previous attempt to find it on the web failed.]

Then why is it you're the one presenting age and opportunity as a reason for someone's sexual preference?

I had said that was the case with pedophilal priests. Gender is irrelevant to them. Also, rape has very little to do with sex as well. It is about control.

Ultron

That's correct.

That's still slightly loaded, unless I am not understanding what you mean by legal in this context. It's not a matter of legal merits. Legally, there are no merits to any arguement you or I make. They just are. It's a moral arguement that I am making. The gist of it is that I think homosexuality is immoral by my standard. IOW they are bad. I have similar standards for other non-heterosexual preferences.

All I can say is that it is my personal belief that non-heterosexual intercourse is bad.

Understood. I have no objection to that.

I totally understand. I don't think it's my place to chastise people for being religious or non-religious. Everyone has their personal beliefs and moral standard, regardless of where it comes from.