Liberal protesters vs. conservative protesters
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
This is how websters defines immoral.
Immoral
Adjective:
Not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Yep, Homosexuality sounds to me like it fits into the definition of immoral to me and thats not even using the bible.
Nope, doesn't sound unethical to me. It harms no-one and nothing but the sensibilities of ignorant, uptight, Christian righties. I'm pretty sure offending someone's sensibilities does not make something immoral.
No, the only thing that "informs you" that being left handed, I mean gay, is immoral, is a ridiculous bronze-age book of mostly fictional stories that are on-par with Dr Zuess in term of believability. And other like minded ignorant bigots like yourself who gather around and assure each other that they're right and that this ridiculous book should be listened to.
Oh so it harms no one huh? Ok, so how come when a parent finds out his kid is gay, 99% of them are hurt?
Homosexuality created AIDS. Bisexuality spread it to heterosexuals. That seems to fit the definition of harm.
Gays can't have children with each other and since social security only works because the population grows, this means they are not contributing to increased population which means when they are old, they will just collect more than they ever put in and they have no decendents to pick up the slack.
99.9% of all boys/men raped are raped by homosexuals. If there were no homosexuals, there would be almost no male rape in the world.
Homosexuals have twice the domestic violence rates of heterosexuals. That costs taxpayers lots of money. That sounds harmful to me.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Sorry, I was wrong...their domestic violence rate is not twice as high as heterosexuals....its at least 5 TIMES HIGHER!!! At least thats what the american journal of public health said in 2002. (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12) So i'm sorry i was a little "conservative" on the numbers.
http://narth.com/docs/domestic.html
From the website...
The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.
In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)
Well I think some of that is disputable and overinflated
And do you want me to cite all the bad things that heterosexuals do? For instance heteros are responsible for the over-population problem. Hitler was a hetero. 99.9 % of the rapes of women are done by heteros. Wife beatings are done almost exclusively by heteros. Almost all sexual child abuse is done by heteros. Some of them very religious heteros. An awful lot of them the same priests who rant against homosexuals.
I could go on, but you get the point.
If more of the world were gay there would many benefits. Population growth would come down. Heteros would be able to have bigger families without overwhelming resources. There would be more compassionate, sensitive men and stronger women. The world would look better. There would be more women at baseball games.
ummm... some traffic cops would be more entertaining?
So you are saying that 3,000 years ago when the population of the world was 99% less than it is today, that everyone had enough resources? Opps, looks like your argument just fell to pieces.