I want one good reason that being gay is ok

riVeRraT responds to coragyps:

quote:

---

Yes I have, gay men cannot reproduce.

---

But neither can sterile people.So if sterile people (who come in both born-that-way and chose-that-way flavors) aren't sinning when they have sex because they cannot reproduce, why are you picking on gay people?

quote:

---

Gay woman cannot reproduce without outside help.

---

Neither can a woman who has had her tubes tied.Why aren't you picking on her?

quote:

---

Do animals that are gay have children?

---

Yes.Depending upon the species, they will assist in the raising of their sibling's children or adopt the children of others.

quote:

---

If they don't couldn't we then say that gay couples having children is unatural?

---

I thought you weren't going to use the "animals don't do it, therefore it's wrong for humans to do it" argument: Message 1So now that you know that gay animals do reproduce in the same way that humans do, are you now going to say that it's natural and therefore not "bad" for humans to be gay?

quote:

---

I am not claiming this

---

Then why did you bring it up?If it truly meant absolutely nothing to you, why did you bring it up?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Smoking pot, raping, and gay sex, all affect other people, differently.

​

What part of differently didn't you understand?

---

The part where you said it.You see, you didn't say that different activities have different results. Instead, you simply compared the two activities which necessarily means that you think they have something in common rather than you think that they are different.Ergo, since you think smoking pot and rape are bad things because they harm others, then comparing them to gay sex necessarily means that you think gay sex is a bad thing because it harms others.What you have failed to do is explain how gay sex harms anybody else any more than straight sex does.And then there is the part where you understood it.That is, if smoking pot, rape, and gay sex all affect other people in different ways, what on earth were you doing trying to compare them? If they are different, then they cannot be comparable.So which is it? Do smoking pot/rape have something in common with gay sex or do they not? If they do, what is it? What do smoking pot/rape have in common with gay sex?Be specific.Otherwise, what on earth was the point of bringing them up?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you're going to whine about gay sex, why aren't you whining about straight sex?

---

​

Because thats another topic.

---

Incorrect. They're the same topic. You see, there isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't do. Therefore, if you're going to condemn gay sex, you're condemning straight sex, too.But since you don't condemn heterosexuality, in and of itself, then you are being disingenuous at best in your condemnation of homosexuality.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Only in the most simplistic way of "a choice." And given that the sex drive is a biological urge, it isn't really accurate to call it a "choice." Most human beings will have sex.

---

​

Some will not have sex based on SOME of the same reasons that cause people to be gay.

---

In other words, they simply are asexual. They didn't choose to be that way...they just are.

quote:

---

Some people have choosen not to have sex.

---

But gay people didn't choose to be gay.And if you allow straight people to have sex, then you must allow gay people to have sex. That's what equality means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A person can be gay and never have sex just as someone can be straight and never have sex.

---

​

Right, then that person is forced into a lifestyle that includes rejecting what they truely desire.

---

"Lifestyle"? What is this "lifestyle"?And what you are suggesting is physically impossible. Why on earth would someone engage in something they find to be physically repulsive and do it over and over and over, actively seek it out, and loudly proclaim that they do not have any regret or guilt or shame over it if it wasn't what they truly desired?Were back to a previous question of mine:How many times would you need to fellate me before you came to like it and became eager to do it again?

quote:

---

Lets not dwell on the word lifestyle,

---

No, we have to. Your use of it indicates you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human sexuality. The sex drive is not a "lifestyle" any more than being black or male or blind or tall is a "llifestyle."

quote:

---

I mean nothing bad by it.

---

Yes, you do. You mean to indicate that being gay is something that people choose out of some psychological illness.Why else would you compare gay people to murderers, rapists, and thieves?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to actually eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that god was lying to them regarding the consequences of eating from the tree.

---

​

Oh, you mean she got tricked.

---

How on earth was she tricked? God said they would die. The serpent said god was lying; instead they would become as gods.Eve ate, didn't die, and became as god.So since what the serpent said came true down to the letter, how on earth was she tricked?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you have a priceless Mhing vase you do not wish broken, do you leave it on a low, rickety pedestal with a toddler in the room? Even if you tell the toddler, "Don't touch"? Are you really going to be surprised to hear a crash coming from the room and the vase broken? Do you really blame the toddler or do you kick yourself for putting a delicate item where an innocent baby who doesn't know any better can get at it?

---

​

If I created the the baby and wanted to give it true free will, I would do that.

---

But the baby doesn't understand. That's what "innocent" means.Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which do you choose? You have free will. You're an adult. You have control over your destiny. So which is it? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Why do you hesitate? What are you waiting for?

quote:

---

Without the tree, we would not have free will, we would just be robots.

---

Incorrect. They had every control over their actions. They didn't have to do anything. Nobody told them to eat from the tree. They simply had their misconceptions from a lying god corrected. After all, they were sinning every day of their lives from running around naked. They could have worn clothing if they wanted to.Adam and Eve weren't stupid. They were innocent. Not knowing right from wrong does not mean one doesn't have free will.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me but doesn't have the decency to include the statement to which he was responding: [quote]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Kind of hard to change the channel for your kids if you happen to not be there.

---

​

If you're that worried, why aren't you there?

​

If you're that worried, why do you have a TV set?

​

Why have you abdicated your responsibility to raise your children as you see fit onto others?

---

quote:

---

Those are 3 very irresponsible statements.

---

How is it irresponsible to raise your children in the way you see fit and not whine about the existence of things you don't like and aren't required to have and don't need to even encounter if you don't want to?Some children have peanut allergies. Their parents do not seem to think that people who eat peanuts are horrible people out to harm their children. Instead, they raise their children to be aware of the world around them and to avoid peanuts. They teach them how to say no. They don't allow peanuts in the house.If you don't like TV, then you will raise your children to be aware of the world around them and to avoid TV. You will teach them how to say no. You will not allow TV in your house.Why do you seem to think that it's my job to raise your children? Let me do it and I think your children will not turn out the way you want them to.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you think "not one jot or one tittle" means? Jesus was quite adamant about it: Mosaic law shall never be dissolved.

---

​

The key words in those verses are "until it is fulfilled"

---

But all has not been fulfilled. Jesus was talking about the end of the world.It hasn't happened yet.Or maybe it has, this is hell, and that's why you're so cranky.

quote:

---

Once Jesus fulfilled them

---

But Jesus didn't fulfill them. He hasn't come back. That's what the "all be fulfilled" means: The return of the messiah to usher in the kingdom of heaven. So unless you're saying that this is heaven, then you are still bound by Mosaic law.

quote:

---

The parable of eye for an eye, was a direct indication that Jesus intended for the law to change after he left.

---

Incorrect. As was already explained to you, "eye for an eye" is an example of the limit of retribution. An upper bound.Jesus simply told you that just because you can go to the limit, that doesn't mean you have to. That's what the story of the woman being stoned is about: She did sin and it was suitable for her to be stoned, but Jesus simply pointed out that everybody has sin in their lives and perhaps they should be more worried about their own problems than the shortcomings of others. Let god do the punishing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

You earned that leagal contract IMo because you want to start a family.

---

Incorrect.If that were the case, we would test people for fertility before allowing them to get married.If that were the case, non-issue would be grounds for annulment.If that were the case, we wouldn't allow people in prison who are not allowed conjugal visits to get married.Therefore, it is obvious to all but the most obstinate observer that getting married has nothing to do with desire to have children.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jesus, RR, if you won't let gay people marry for themselves, let them do it for their children, ok?

---

​

I am not convinced that same-sex couples make better parents, than striaght couples.

---

Why do gay people have to be better parents than straight people in order to be given equal rights? Why can't they just be the same?It turns out that gay people tend to be better parents, but the question put to you is why you hold gay people to a higher standard than straight people.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I am also a hypocrite, because I have had a vascectomy.

---

So get it reversed.You chose to have your vasectomy, didn't you? Choose to get it reversed. Get yourself squared away in the eyes of your lord.If you truly don't detest yourself for this, then why are you picking on gay people?

quote:

---

This is one of the reasons why I accept gay people, and what they do

---

No, you don't.If you did, you wouldn't vote against equal treatment under the law. In fact, you would adamantly demand it.Instead, you say things like this: Message 137 of "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Well, I predict that since they're generally higher-income than your average straight parent (due to the monetary cost of overcoming the fertility problem)

---

This is a common misconception.On the contrary, gay people earn less than their straight counterparts, even when coupled.Yes, a couple with no kids has different financial burdens than a couple with kids, but if the couple doesn't earn much in the first place due to discrimination and doesn't gain any of the monetary benefits of marriage (the "marriage tax penalty" is more than offset by the various benefits such as not having to purchase separate insurance policies, the ability to transfer property from one spouse to another for tax purposes, inheritance rights, survivorship rights, etc.), they aren't coming out ahead of the game.If you have +10 and -3 and I have -5 and +3, I'm still in negative territory and you're still ahead.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your a woman now, did you know that?

---

​

Well, a quick check down the front of my pants puts that to the lie. If you really need me to I can scan my junk and email it to you, but that might weird out your wife.

---

No, what you are missing is riVeRraT's unsubstantiated claim that a woman in California was declared the "father" of a child she had with her lesbian partner.Therefore, in a complete reversal of logic, he has concluded that if a woman can be a "father," then all fathers must be women.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

I mean, if you have to have n dollars to be gay and have a child, the set of all people with n dollars has a higher number of dollars, on average, then the set of all people with any number of dollars, if n is greater than zero. Right?

---

Yes, but not necessarily significantly so. If the number of people who engage in high-cost methods of having children is low, the difference may not be able to overcome the standard deviation.Surrogacy is expensive. Implantation is expensive. Sperm donation isn't that expensive. Adoption isn't that expensive. But the expense is not all that great when it comes to the question of long-term financial status. Couples motivated to have a child can scrape together the $10,000 for an implantation attempt. As far as earning potential goes over the course of years, $10,000 isn't going to make that much of a difference. It's nothing to sneeze at, definitely, but it isn't the grand equalizer, either.And, of course, there's all the gay people who have children the old-fashioned way.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!