Do you support homosexual?

ok fine that arguement is full of holes i suck at debating. well even if it is unatural why is it wrong?

*edit*i meant to say why do you think its wrong and just because its unatural doesent make it wrong.

For the hundredth time...WE DO NOT HATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ***!!! We disagree with what they do and find it wrong. I find it to be antiproductive for society and quite frankly degrading to the human genome. Now, once again...I DO NOT HATE *** PEOPLE! Hell, i'm a musician in Theater and i'm in the Music Combo for a Show Choir. I'm surrounded by *** people. If I hated them I doubt I'd be doing what I'm doing. I'm perfectly fine with the people. I'm simply against the act of being ***. That's what we're arguing about, not the people...the act.



The only thing mentioned that is truly unnatural is the driving of cars. However, that isn't even unnatural either.
-Monkeys in forests swing from vines to travel quicker. So, they use tools found in their environment to travel. We used minerals and coal to create a device that allows for faster travel. We're doing the exact same thing monkeys are. I bet they would use cars, too, if their brain was large enough to find a way to make them.
-Certain species of birds and monkeys (lol, monkeys are about the most advanced species out there...) have been observed putting dirt and mashing berries against themselves to make them appear vibrate and colorful. They used this to appeal to the other ***. Isn't that what make-up is for? People put on make-up to look better, and in the end to attract the other ***? So make-up, too, is natural.
-Wearing clothes is simply a form of shelter. The only function of clothes is to provide cover from wind, rain, and the elements. Over the years we've stylized clothes appeal, once again, to the other ***, but the function remains the same. So now, cloths are natural in two ways. 1) to attract the other ***, and 2) to provide shelter.


Yes, most laws are made for safety. But what kind of safety? The answer is every kind of safety. Physical safety, economic safety, emotional safety...
Although being *** hasn't physically hurt anyone, I can assure you that emotionally it has caused more pain than most gang bangs or robberies. *** people are "sad" because they can't be MARRIED. However, people like me find it emotionally and psychologically disturbing to see somebody being *** in public. It goes against my nature, and my beliefs. Thus, although they don't physically harm me, they are hurting me in some sense. So, *** rights laws would provide my emotional and psychological safety.

I know you'll probably say "Well, they would also prohibit *** people from feeling emotional security in society. Thus, the laws would be hurting them in the same sense they would be helping you."
Yes, that's true. But *** people are the minority. You will never see a law helping the minority in a situation like this. They will ALWAYS benefit the majority of the nation. Thus, prop8 was right in my eyes. The state shouldn't forget the majority of it's people in trying to please the minority.

Both sides of this debate are equally cringeworthy. Which is why I've avoided this topic thus far. But I feel the need to try and interject some reason in to what is fast becoming a cavalcade of bigotry and hate.

If two people are in love. Any two people, forget gender, Should they not have the right to be together? What people do behind closed doors is really nobody elses buisness and the fact that so many of you are so interested in regulating the behaviour of others I find very odd. Since you are the same crowd of people who are mostly barking on about your 'rights' and the sort of people who would freely ***** about the police state and erosion of civil liberties. With your close minded and hateful approach to this subject matter you are making massive hypocrites of yourselves and your view points.

And on to the other side of this topic. I believe that peoples merits as potential parents should be judged by their character, and not their sexual orientation. There are most likely plenty of heterosexual couples who would make worse parents than a *** couple. And vice versa of course. I'm not saying every *** couple has a right to adopt or is suitable as a parent. But their potential as parents should be judged on their actions and character and not their sexuality.

But at the end of the day, you can't debate peoples happiness. Two people being together and even possibly raising children does not harm any of us, far too many people in this day and age are overtly concerned with what others are doing instead of concentrating on their own lives, which is probably why this world is so full of **** ups.

I'm not interested in any debate on this topic. Quote me and try and pick apart my arguments if it tricks you in to feeling big and clever, but I won't respond. Don't think about Pm'ing me either. This topic has eroded my opinions of an awful lot of people on these forums.

I think Brad gave one (if not,the best) of the best answer of the whole topic

At my school, there is a *** guy (oh no, not my friend, I will explain why), he uses female gestures,he always have a betty boop bag, he almost talk like a woman,he wear lipstick and stuff like that. I find it quite weird, but it doesnt bother me.

What bothers me is when he talks,in public, about his 'experiences' (like having an orgy with 13 men), uh...that just doesnt...interest me...Or at least...I just...dont give a ****...

So my final opinion is, I dont mind if someone acts,dress and do things like a homosexual, But God, I BEG YOU TO DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES!

Knew someone would say that. He is really homosexual, he brags about it.

Why don't we just kill all gays, all religious people, and all idiots. The world will be a much better place. We'd all be the same