Where did I say that? I never and you're trying to manipulate my replies to fit your own agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that I find gays disgusting - no matter if they are good looking or not. I've also said I don't believe kids should be brought up by gays - that's my personal opinion. You have yours - now have a good day!
The point is that you evaded the question by only specifying a subset in your reply, and mistakenly attributed that to be "all" by extension. That's not good logic. The good news is that you now answered the question properly. You find all gays disgusting - that wasn't so hard to answer, huh? I have to wonder why you didn't answer with that in the first place, though.
I'll have a gay old day, thanks. And I'm straight, for reference. Mostly, anyways.
And there was me with the belive that Christianity was the religion that accepts all.
Religious texts have always been manipulated to fit the agenda of the ones reading it. It's the same thing as the law; someone is always going to interpret it in a way to create a loophole. In my opinion, religion has outstayed its welcome in the current age.
I am not an expert at natural things, so I might be completely wrong here. But I think nature isn't a sentient being, so it cannot intend anything.
I'll get a bit complex here. If by nature, one means the universe as whole, it depends on how quantum physics actually functions, since it's generally accepted that determinism is impossible without everything else making no sense. Either way, nature is not sentient and therefore lacks a will.
There's biological family and political one. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Being raised by someone is not the same as being conceived.
You were the one who was using the word "biological" to describe adoptions, not me. I argued with what I read.
You are asuming I am religious because of my opinions. I feel offended (lol). I do not practice any religion. However I see is common practice to attack religion as the creator of that line of thought. Coming from people who ask for tolerance you are not tolerating religion that much...
Considering how many recent scandals there have been, and how religion as of late seems to have been reduced to a mere political tool rather than a way to teach morals...yes, I am very biased against it as a whole. I think it's run it's course and no longer serves any purpose for the human race. Back in the 1600s, they started the education of of people and were the ones who propogated literature - they had a
role as it were. Nowadays, not so much.
You speak about your own case, as if it were proof of something. There's millions of different cases out there, and there will be good and bad, you cannot focus only on a small number of it.
It's proof that having a role-reversed mother and father and a different upbringing from what you describe as "normal" changes absolutely nothing. I'm not going to dredge up statistics here, since you would likely claim them to be biased if they equally weighted minorities and majorities. You
can focus on a small number, because if the majority of the minority functions normally, it disproves your "this is bad" assertion.
Family is directly related with biology, DNA transfers and the social part of it all. When you are raised by a man and a woman, as nature intended, you are learning about their relationship, what interactions they make with each other, and how you should treat someone from the opposite gender and how they should treat you. If you don't see that at an early age you might not understand that relationship. That is one example of it.
Again, define "as nature intends". This is not common sense. You can't make that argument without defining nature's intentions. Aside from that, the fact that you think you should treat people different based on any factor rather than as individuals so tells me that your upbringing was far more dysfunctional than mine.
@
Xdqwerty:
@
BakerMan:
@
NinStar:
@
a_username_that_isnt_cool:
