Your mind is wrong then, and your discrimination is unjustified. They do not follow your beliefs just as gays do not follow your beliefs.

Just one thing:
Even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, despite all proof and logic arguing otherwise, it should still remain legal.

Think about it.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is directly victimized beyond reasonable doubt by homosexuality.
This is the ultimate "victimless crime."
So how do you illegalize something that hurts nobody?
Even if it is "wrong", there is a difference between "wrong" and "unethical".
I might think drinking or owning a gun is wrong, I might even think that using electricity is wrong, but they still should remain legal.

It doesn't matter if people are born or raised gay. The fact of the matter is, it isn't their fault. The end.

Well with that mentality, nothing is anyone's fault.
A murderer can attribute blame to his parents, and their parents can blame their parents, and so on.

Having the urge to be gay is not their fault.
Having gay sex is.

But lucky for them, gay sex is not a crime. So the end.

Okay, it's your fault you're straight (are you straight? don't want to assume and insult you).

However I somewhat agree. The issue of fault doesn't relate to whether something is right or wrong. So saying it's not their fault doesn't make it right, and saying it is their fault doesn't make it wrong. Fault and right/wrong aren't related.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

I was demonstrating that he couldn't use that idea.
As for sexuality, it is unknown whether it is genetic or a result of nurture.
So you can't still can't assume anything like, "it isn't their fault".

Also, you don't somewhat agree, you completely agree because that was what I meant.

I couldn't even read all this topic... (normally I would). When you see falkoner's RIDICULOUS bullshit, there's really no point in reading 7 pages of the go back and forth between them. I said both, although I am open to the choice that it is just nature, and not at all that it is just nuture. It's just too bad how much propaganda has been shoved into Falkoner's brain all his life, he doesn't even know what he's talking about. (I did see some of his other comments in quotes) He ultimately cannot justify ANYTHING he says, but, what to do. And that isn't to say that no one else said any baseless remarks either. Hmm, apparently someone was trying to say it should be a crime too? Whoever said that is... is.... (insert flame here). I don't know who they are tho (yet), so w/e

Obviously you think that what I said has no base because it is based on faith, which in most people's opinion is not a real base.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2007, 12:32 am by Falkoner.

Because we could have conflicting faiths that are pretty much equally valid...

No, I don't completely agree, because my point is that fault doesn't matter. Fault is another issue that can be debated for either homosexuality, and in their case of your example, murder.

And that was the way in which I was using fault as a word. You assumed that I was using it negatively.

Faith, in this case, is absolute. It allows no room for argument, which, besides making debate pointless, is pointless because people can have conflicting beliefs based on faith. If everyone has infinite money, money becomes worthless. Money becomes useful for nothing, it does nothing, it shows nothing, it proves nothing, it essentially doesn't exist.

Just some replies to various things that have been said.

As previously stated, being male and being very feminine does not make him gay, and being female and being very masculine does not make her lesbian. It does not make them bisexual either. I personally know some men who are very feminine and are far from being homosexual or bisexual even. Also, who is to say that the psychological part of it is not more simply about liking more masculine or more feminine traits and not about gender?

Being gay is not a racial thing, so racism would not be the proper term. I do not know what the proper term would be, but it is not racism.

And where are those conditions you speak of? I have never heard of any myself. Oh, and the kind of love it is talking about would be like love for a friend or a family member, not referring to anything like romantic love or sexual love.

However, Congress could have passed it without him anyway, as it was passed by even greater than a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate and only two-thirds is needed to override a veto.

On the other hand, (hypothetically speaking, since I'm unsure on what laws exist on the matter) if the term "sexual orientation" was not officially recognized as having any valid legal meaning (as in, if there are no laws officially recognizing homosexuality as a difference in "sexual orientation" in any way, in other words meaning that "sexual orientation" is determined exclusively by gender), then who is to say that it is any different than persecuting someone for other reasons, like for being a "geek" (lol), as an example.

Speaking of propaganda, some of the pro-gay/pro-lesbian propaganda is likely making some people think they are that way when they are not really. For example, some people may think they are homosexual because they seem to not be attracted to the opposite gender when most likely they have simply not found the right person yet. Not everyone is attracted to everyone of the opposite gender; people do have their preferences. Some people may not even be attracted to anyone at all of the opposite gender except just the right person. (of course, all of this is just my opinion, not really backed by any facts)


Someone mentioned in a previous post about there being an overpopulation problem. I don't want to go look through the 7 pages again, so I don't really have a specific quote to reply to.

If referring to all of the habitable land in the world, it can be argued whether there even is an overpopulation problem at all. There is plenty of usable land in the world that is not being used for anything at all; not housing, not farming, etc., absolutely nothing.

Did someone? I can't believe I missed that, because that is definitely one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard, mainly because most people are saying that we need to have less kids so we can save the Earth for... our kids that we didn't have?

It doesn't matter what you intended it to mean, positive or negative, the point is that it the opposite can be debated and either way neither has any relevance to homosexuality being right or wrong.

The other thing about homosexuality, is that while in you people's opinions it is okay, do you think it is right? I know you think it isn't wrong, but do you think it is right?

No, it can't be debated. There's no sure proof that homosexuality is nature or nurture, so to assume that it's not choice is just outright wrong anyways.
That's what I'm saying. I was correcting his train of thought, and I wasn't making a comment on whether homosexuality was right or wrong. You misunderstood me.

What post are you reading? I am not talking about choice and did not mention it at all and your second sentence completely contradicts your first sentence. The fact that you are saying there is no sure proof of nature or nuture means it can be debated. I made no assumptions in that post.



The misunderstanding arose because your original post failed to clearly conclude that fault has no effect on right or wrong. Your post wouldn't be making the same point as my post, because as you said you weren't making a comment on right or wrong at all. You were just providing an opposing example to the issue of fault.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 7 2007, 12:23 am by devilesk.

When did the topic shift from Nature vs. Nuture to right and wrong? Falkoner, regardless of whether you think a person's sexual orientation is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Nobody is forcing you to take part in this debate, which is nature vs. nurture. You are more than welcome to open another topic on the morality of the issue, but posts such as yours do not belong here.