Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[jiratic]

homosexuality, strictly speaking is good for our existence.
It can never, or will get to the point where it ends our existence.
It's natures birth control; keeping competition down, and populations down.
Without homosexuality, imagine how bad crowding in India would be by now?
heck, in thenext 50 years, worlds going to **** with all the overpopulation.

 

[ekoolish]

No only against yours.

And no one gives a shit about your existence.

yeah that makes sense rofl

homosexuality, strictly speaking is good for our existence.
It can never, or will get to the point where it ends our existence.
It's natures birth control; keeping competition down, and populations down.
Without homosexuality, imagine how bad crowding in India would be by now?
heck, in thenext 50 years, worlds going to **** with all the overpopulation.

Err so your insisting homosexuality should be endorsed for purposes of curing the problem of overpopulation in india, that's lolable

 

[xeuyrawp]

Dude. Wait. What?

You said:

Imagine a world of only homosexuals? Then you will realise if it is wrong or right. If in doubt of something, take it to an extreme and it will be heard and found.

Ie, you're saying that a world full of homosexuals would be bad. Therefore, homosexuals are bad.

However, a word full of women would be also be bad. Therefore, women are also bad.

A world full of men would also be bad. Therefore, men are also bad.

etc etc

Clearly you're a bit of a retard who has trouble grasping the basic concepts of argument.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

homosexuality, strictly speaking is good for our existence.
It can never, or will get to the point where it ends our existence.
It's natures birth control; keeping competition down, and populations down.
Without homosexuality, imagine how bad crowding in India would be by now?
heck, in thenext 50 years, worlds going to **** with all the overpopulation.

Yes I have raised this point already in my previous posts. Homosexuality is mother nature's way of controlling our population. Higher population puts strain on resources and our economy. Hence, homosexuals save the world.

 

[auschwitzfuhrer]

I don't support fag "marriage".

 

[SnowFox]

I don't support fag "marriage".

I wouldnt support to cigarettes getting married either.

 

[Iron]

wicked and vicious sin
you should all be ashamed

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I don't support fag "marriage".

You don't know what you're talking about you ignorant piss. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege.

 

[moll.]

I wouldnt support two cigarettes getting married either.

Nor firewood.

 

[Iron]

[youtube]TY8J35OXVxg&feature=related[/youtube]
God can still forgive you

 

[Iron]

negged 4 poor lyfestyle choices

 

[Napstar]

oh gosh i forgot

i get banned for 234739854 years and lose all my subscribed threads

~why~

 

[Napstar]

I see what you're saying, and you're completely right - my point stands, though, about how HIV is transmitted and that moll was wrong about it.

My other point was that I'm going to have to call a distinction between "created" and "designed" though. I would see evolution as like a water source turning into a river - it just sort of flows the easiest path and creates a river with little bits that branch off but don't work out so well. There's no design in it, really. Maybe I just freak out every time I see that word because of Intelligent Design - seems that some people just replace a god with nature and *poof* the same values can be transferred. Or maybe it's the linguist in me - if you want to say 'the anus is biologically designed to..." then you need to make that passive sentence active and make a subject; eg "nature designed the anus biologically to..." which doesn't really work out.

It's difficult being a branch. :-(

yeah okay we'll agree to disagree about the designed part

i'm fairly sure there is a better term for it, but i'm struggling to find it

 

[Napstar]

"Made for sex" huh?

Well what about couples who engage in oral sex? The mouth isn't designed for that purpose right? The penis is a sensitive organ, and against a hard set of teeth, I'd say it'd be pretty painful. I mean, if the mouth was designed for that purpose, then wouldn't there be some means to retract our teeth?

The point still stands for oral sex. But that said, it's fairly evident you completely missed the point and I cbf reiterating it.

 

[Napstar]

Homosexuality goes against our very existence.

http://www.sprin gerlink.com/content/l02pg5072m188m45/

Google Anser Anser, (grey/white geese).

Homosexuality works. And it creates nurturing and safe family environment.

~Amazing~

 

[ekoolish]

Dude. Wait. What?

You said:


Ie, you're saying that a world full of homosexuals would be bad. Therefore, homosexuals are bad.

However, a word full of women would be also be bad. Therefore, women are also bad.

A world full of men would also be bad. Therefore, men are also bad.

etc etc

Clearly you're a bit of a retard who has trouble grasping the basic concepts of argument.

Hahaha. No. You're drawing inaccurate conclusions. Homosexual relationships are bad yes. 'Having a world full of only woman' is indeed bad, for obvious reasons. However i don't see how that means that woman are bad?

You're confusing yourself.

My point is that homosexuality goes against our very existence, as does having a world full of only one sex (which of course is the ultimate synthesis to widespread homosexuality).

 

[ekoolish]

http://www.sprin gerlink.com/content/l02pg5072m188m45/

Google Anser Anser, (grey/white geese).

Homosexuality works. And it creates nurturing and safe family environment.

~Amazing~

lolwut? there will be no families to nurture...

 

[ekoolish]

Are you implying that homosexual relationships will lead to the very extinction of the human race? I have raised this point MANY times before already. There are countless children sitting in orphanages (who, by the way, are a product of HETEROSEXUAL relationships) who are in dire need of a family. Homosexuals are the answer!

Yes. Lol wow how retarded are you? Who will the homos take as orphans if there are no orphans being produced.

 

[ekoolish]

Fuck, you're completely idiotic.

How so? First sign of someone realising they are wrong = anger.

 

[Sprangler]

How so? First sign of someone realising they are wrong = anger.

Running out of people would never happen, but as it stands there are too many people on earth anyway. I mean, China still forcefully aborts kids. There will always be orphans to be adopted.

Taking them away from their culture and placing them with two men is wrong. Surely you can see how unfair that is?

Prove that a two-male parental environment is detrimental to the children.