Better to have a straight parent in jail than gay parents at home

[The Rabbi]

We should just let all the liberals be gay. Within a hundred years or so their party would be extinct. Problem solved.

If it was a choice that would make sense.

Or do all conservatives regularly fight with their "homosexual side."

So it is a disease. Race for the Cure!

 

[Photonic]

We should just let all the liberals be gay. Within a hundred years or so their party would be extinct. Problem solved.

If it was a choice that would make sense.

Or do all conservatives regularly fight with their "homosexual side."

So it is a disease. Race for the Cure!

Let's find a cure for liking the opposite sex too. It would basically be the exact same.

 

[Mr Natural]

The FACT is that the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexual parents.

Santorum, who brought a dead fetus home and made his children hold it, really should shut his trap about other peoples parenting.

That's about as twisted as it gets.

 

[The Rabbi]

The FACT is that the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to children raised by heterosexual parents.

Santorum, who brought a dead fetus home and made his children hold it, really should shut his trap about other peoples parenting.

That's about as twisted as it gets.

Seabytch is pretty twisted. True.

 

[g5000]

I didnt just "sneak it" in there. Gays have a much higher incidence of diseases, not just AIDS, than heterosexuals. They have a much higher rate of sexual activity than heterosexuals as well, not coincidentally btw.

Of course it isn't a coincidence that those who are denied the rite of marriage are going to have a higher rate of sexual activity. At the very least, they will have more sexual partners.

No one has mentioned AIDS as a reason to "deny" gay marriage. I've never seen that as an argument. Another straw man from you.

Then you aren't keeping up with your fellow bigots. The AIDS argument is the latest rage now that every other logical fallacy they use has been repeatedly debunked.

Holy shit. Speaking of strawmen and logical fallacies, get a load of this:

Gays are in a dilemma. They say, obviously this isn't a choice. Who would want to be like this?
OK, that makes homosexuality a disease that needs to be cured.
Oh, no. It isn't a disease.
Then it must be a choice. And an obviously bad one.

Gays are not in a dilemna. They do not say, "Who would want to be like this?" This is all from your fevered imagination.

Sexual orientation is not something you decide. When did you decide to be straight?

We see from the article the political pressure exerted by the *** lobby to get doctors to drop the label of disease, in fact to remove every stigma of homosexuality, no matter how true. So the absence of literature detailing this is not because the data are not there.

"*** lobby." Careful, your mask is slipping.

The absence of evidence for your position is not proof of your position. In short, you are simply making shit up.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt just "sneak it" in there. Gays have a much higher incidence of diseases, not just AIDS, than heterosexuals. They have a much higher rate of sexual activity than heterosexuals as well, not coincidentally btw.

Of course it isn't a coincidence that those who are denied the rite of marriage are going to have a higher rate of sexual activity. At the very least, they will have more sexual partners.

No one has mentioned AIDS as a reason to "deny" gay marriage. I've never seen that as an argument. Another straw man from you.

Then you aren't keeping up with your fellow bigots. The AIDS argument is the latest rage now that every other logical fallacy they use has been repeatedly debunked.

Holy shit. Speaking of strawmen and logical fallacies, get a load of this:

Gays are in a dilemma. They say, obviously this isn't a choice. Who would want to be like this?
OK, that makes homosexuality a disease that needs to be cured.
Oh, no. It isn't a disease.
Then it must be a choice. And an obviously bad one.

Gays are not in a dilemna. They do not say, "Who would want to be like this?" This is all from your fevered imagination.

Sexual orientation is not something you decide. When did you decide to be straight?

We see from the article the political pressure exerted by the *** lobby to get doctors to drop the label of disease, in fact to remove every stigma of homosexuality, no matter how true. So the absence of literature detailing this is not because the data are not there.

"*** lobby." Careful, your mask is slipping.

The absence of evidence for your position is not proof of your position. In short, you are simply making shit up.

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.
If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease. And teh AMA was wrong to remove homosexuality from its list of illnesses.

 

[Photonic]

I didnt just "sneak it" in there. Gays have a much higher incidence of diseases, not just AIDS, than heterosexuals. They have a much higher rate of sexual activity than heterosexuals as well, not coincidentally btw.

Of course it isn't a coincidence that those who are denied the rite of marriage are going to have a higher rate of sexual activity. At the very least, they will have more sexual partners.




Then you aren't keeping up with your fellow bigots. The AIDS argument is the latest rage now that every other logical fallacy they use has been repeatedly debunked.

Holy shit. Speaking of strawmen and logical fallacies, get a load of this:


Gays are not in a dilemna. They do not say, "Who would want to be like this?" This is all from your fevered imagination.

Sexual orientation is not something you decide. When did you decide to be straight?

We see from the article the political pressure exerted by the *** lobby to get doctors to drop the label of disease, in fact to remove every stigma of homosexuality, no matter how true. So the absence of literature detailing this is not because the data are not there.

"*** lobby." Careful, your mask is slipping.

The absence of evidence for your position is not proof of your position. In short, you are simply making shit up.

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.
If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease. And teh AMA was wrong to remove homosexuality from its list of illnesses.

You should take time out of your day to go help the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church campaign.


You seem well suited to it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it isn't a coincidence that those who are denied the rite of marriage are going to have a higher rate of sexual activity. At the very least, they will have more sexual partners.




Then you aren't keeping up with your fellow bigots. The AIDS argument is the latest rage now that every other logical fallacy they use has been repeatedly debunked.

Holy shit. Speaking of strawmen and logical fallacies, get a load of this:


Gays are not in a dilemna. They do not say, "Who would want to be like this?" This is all from your fevered imagination.

Sexual orientation is not something you decide. When did you decide to be straight?



"*** lobby." Careful, your mask is slipping.

The absence of evidence for your position is not proof of your position. In short, you are simply making shit up.

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.
If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease. And teh AMA was wrong to remove homosexuality from its list of illnesses.

You should take time out of your day to go help the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church campaign.


You seem well suited to it.

Translation: I have nothing to refute this brilliant piece of logic.
Thanks!

 

[g5000]

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.

You cannot deny a privilege from one class of people that is extended to others just because you don't like them. Like I said, you and Santorum haven't a clue about rights.

If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease.

With this stunning statement, we are left with one of two possibilities. Either heterosexuality is a disease, or you actually had to sit down one day and decide not to be gay.

You see the paradox you have created for yourself with your illogic?

If sexual orientation is not a choice and therefore must be a disease, then heterosexuality is a disease.

When did you decide not to be gay?

This is what happens when idiots make false dilemma logical fallacies for themselves.

 

[Photonic]

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.
If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease. And teh AMA was wrong to remove homosexuality from its list of illnesses.

You should take time out of your day to go help the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church campaign.


You seem well suited to it.

Translation: I have nothing to refute this brilliant piece of logic.
Thanks!

Your argument is that because heterosexuals don't **** as many people as homosexuals, there must be something wrong with them

Brilliant piece of logic. Absolutely Nobel Prize worthy.

Also, last I checked, straight people can enjoy a right homosexuals can't.

 

[Sunni Man]

Letting children be raised by homosexuals is the worst form of child abuse that a kid could be subject to.

There is no way that they will ever be normal or mentally well adjusted when they become adults.

And basically will be ruined for life.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument would be worth a shit, except that it's wrong.
Unmarried heterosexuals have a much lower rate of promiscuity and disease than homosexuals.
No one has made the argument that AIDS is a valid reason. Frankly there doesnt need to be a reason. There needs to be a reason why gays should enjoy a right that straight people dont. And there isn't one.

You cannot deny a privilege to a class of people just because you don't like them.

If it isn't a conscious decision, then it must be a disease.

With this stunning statement, we are left with two choices. Either heterosexuality is a disease, or you actually had to sit down one day and decide not to be gay.

Gays are not a class of people. There is nothing distinguishing them from anyone else.
Heterosexuality is clearly not a disease but the normal state of human beings. Homosexuality is clearly, and literally, a perversion of that state. Thus a disease.

 

[Photonic]

I also can't help but notice you never said you wouldn't join those groups, so I'll take that to mean you support them both.

 

[Photonic]

Letting children be raised by homosexuals is the worst form of child abuse that a kid could be subject to.

There is no way that they will ever be normal or mentally well adjusted when they become adults.

And basically will be ruined for life.

I would say the same thing about indoctrinating a child into religion.

 

[The Rabbi]

You should take time out of your day to go help the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church campaign.


You seem well suited to it.

Translation: I have nothing to refute this brilliant piece of logic.
Thanks!

Your argument is that because heterosexuals don't **** as many people as homosexuals, there must be something wrong with them

Brilliant piece of logic. Absolutely Nobel Prize worthy.

Also, last I checked, straight people can enjoy a right homosexuals can't.

No, my argument is that unbridled promiscuity leads to higher incidents of disease and is itself a symptom of illness.
Homosexuals enjoy exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. Last I checked there was nothing legally heterosexuals could do that homosexuals cannot do. You cannot name a single thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Letting children be raised by homosexuals is the worst form of child abuse that a kid could be subject to.

There is no way that they will ever be normal or mentally well adjusted when they become adults.

And basically will be ruined for life.

I would say the same thing about indoctrinating a child into religion.

Of course you would.
But we're talking about rational people here.

 

[Photonic]

Letting children be raised by homosexuals is the worst form of child abuse that a kid could be subject to.

There is no way that they will ever be normal or mentally well adjusted when they become adults.

And basically will be ruined for life.

I would say the same thing about indoctrinating a child into religion.

Of course you would.
But we're talking about rational people here.

Good, so you're willing to listen to me finally?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You should take time out of your day to go help the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church campaign.


You seem well suited to it.

Translation: I have nothing to refute this brilliant piece of logic.
Thanks!

Your argument is that because heterosexuals don't **** as many people as homosexuals, there must be something wrong with them

Brilliant piece of logic. Absolutely Nobel Prize worthy.

Also, last I checked, straight people can enjoy a right homosexuals can't.

Which is what?

 

[g5000]

Jesus. I can't believe I am in an argument with a person who believes homosexuality is either a disease or a choice.

Talk about narrow minded!

Classic fallacy of the excluded middle.

In the end, the argument comes to "God hates fags". We see that behind the "*** lobby" comment.

And once you get to God-hates-fags, there is nothing more you can do. The conversation is over.

 

[Photonic]

Jesus. I can't believe I am in an argument with a person who believes homosexuality is either a disease or a choice.

Talk about narrow minded!

Classic fallacy of the excluded middle.

In the end, the argument comes to "God hates fags". We see that behind the "*** lobby" comment.

And once you get to God-hates-fags, there is nothing more you can do. The conversation is over.

There are a ton of logical fallacies I could point out, but he's so brain washed at this point there is literally nothing we could ever say to convince him.

It actually says a lot about humanity in general.