[la_senorita_azul]

I personally think that having children that you can't feed or nurture is more destructive than not having children at all.

[titanz91]

Well engaging in homosexual acts does not harm anyone, not having kids (as in me not) harms no one, (what if i took a personal vow of celibacy or if i was incurably infertile)and not everyone is born to have kids, it not like homosexuals are doing this to be destructive (so would you say the same of two capable heterosexuals, what about there destructive behavior in not having kids), and there is much more to society then having babies, religion, knowledge, emotions, love, friendships, technology, all random things that are an enormous part of society. As trans precious also said, if everyone had one baby, even then the world would be way more over populated then it is now, and what about people having twins, triplets, quadrouplts? Here is a simple repeat, "Just because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean you should/

[lilacofdamnation]

supershrimp wrote: I've already explained why being infertile is not a sin. Maybe you should read the posts. And the rest of this is in your opinion. You're presenting it as a fact. If that were me, I'd be getting bashed right now.

If being infertile isn't the "sin", then don't use "having children" as your basis for why you claim that being a homosexual is. It's certainly not as if they can't have children; that's like saying that having sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin. Come on, now.
And those things are presented as fact because they are pretty much common sense.
Being a homosexual does not harm an individual, much less the society. Show me proof of the opposite.
There is more to life and society than reproduction. Tell me that's not true.
Simply not doing something (especially when that something could actually have a negative impact on society) is not being destructive. You said "destructive by definition" and frankly, I don't see how a small amount of people not having children could possibly be destructive to this society at all--and once again, being a homosexual =/= not having children.

[supershrimp]

lilacofdamnation wrote: If being infertile isn't the "sin", then don't use "having children" as your basis for why you claim that being a homosexual is. It's certainly not as if they can't have children; that's like saying that having sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin. Come on, now. And those things are presented as fact because they are pretty much common sense. Being a homosexual does not harm an individual, much less the society. Show me proof of the opposite. There is more to life and society than reproduction. Tell me that's not true. Simply not doing something (especially when that something could actually have a negative impact on society) is not being destructive. You said "destructive by definition" and frankly, I don't see how a small amount of people not having children could possibly be destructive to this society at all--and once again, being a homosexual =/= not having children.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I just said it was opinion, presented as fact.

And I'm not using having children as a basis. It was one point. And being infertile isn't a choice. Imo, homosexuality is. You can change it.

[lilacofdamnation]

supershrimp wrote: I didn't say it wasn't true. I just said it was opinion, presented as fact. And I'm not using having children as a basis. It was one point. And being infertile isn't a choice. Imo, homosexuality is. You can change it.

It's fact with a little passion behind it. ':/ Those really aren't matters of "I feel ____ about ____"; it's just the way things are. If you wanna say the contrary, be prepared to give reasons for disagreement.
I don't care what you think is a choice or what you believe can be changed; that doesn't change the fact that having children has little/nothing to do with homosexuality or "wrongdoing".
And if that's not your basis, then you still haven't answered my question. If you are, in fact, using it as a point, though, then you're claiming it as part of your basis--and IMO, it's a foolish point as far as that goes.

[supershrimp]

lilacofdamnation wrote: It's fact with a little passion behind it. ':/ Those really aren't matters of "I feel ____ about ____"; it's just the way things are. If you wanna say the contrary, be prepared to give reasons for disagreement. I don't care what you think is a choice or what you believe can be changed; that doesn't change the fact that having children has little/nothing to do with homosexuality or "wrongdoing". And if that's not your basis, then you still haven't answered my question. If you are, in fact, using it as a point, though, then you're claiming it as part of your basis--and IMO, it's a foolish point as far as that goes.

She's got no proof of anything that she said that was highlighted. It was all in her opinion. Some of it may be common sense, but it's still an opinion.

I have answered your question, you just ignore it everytime.
I agree, it's a bad point. And It's not part of my basis, that was your bad. I don't base anything off of it. Hell, i just thought of it, what, half an hour ago?

[supershrimp]

And I wasn't done with that post. X;

imo, being infertile wouldn't be considered a sin because you've got no choice in the matter.
If being homosexual was indeed a sin because it gave you no way to reproduce with your partner, you'd still have a choice to change your orientation.

[lilacofdamnation]

supershrimp wrote: She's got no proof of anything that she said that was highlighted. It was all in her opinion. Some of it may be common sense, but it's still an opinion. I have answered your question, you just ignore it everytime. I agree, it's a bad point. And It's not part of my basis, that was your bad. I don't base anything off of it. Hell, i just thought of it, what, half an hour ago?

I've been reading through this thing and I have not seen you answer my question anywhere. Instead of claiming that you have, why don't you give me a clear answer right now while I'm still here so I can make sure not to miss it?
And as all of those things are true with no valid means of being disproved, I don't see how they are anything less than fact.
If it's a bad point and has nothing to do with your basis, then why did you bring it up when asked what your basis was?

[supershrimp]

lilacofdamnation wrote: I've been reading through this thing and I have not seen you answer my question anywhere. Instead of claiming that you have, why don't you give me a clear answer right now while I'm still here so I can make sure not to miss it? And as all of those things are true with no valid means of being disproved, I don't see how they are anything less than fact. If it's a bad point and has nothing to do with your basis, then why did you bring it up when asked what your basis was?

No actually, I brought it up when someone said that being homosexual didn't hurt anyone.
They're not nessicarily true though. They're true in your opinion.
I could sit here and say "God is real" imo, that's true and you've got no way of disproving it. Does that make it fact?

[lilacofdamnation]

supershrimp wrote: No actually, I brought it up when someone said that being homosexual didn't hurt anyone. They're not nessicarily true though. They're true in your opinion. I could sit here and say "God is real" imo, that's true and you've got no way of disproving it. Does that make it fact?

That's quite a different matter. These are simple, tangible facts of life. Not opinion. If they're not necessarily true, then tell me how they aren't. Until then, I'll have to believe that you're just grasping at straws and dodging the real point. Being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone. If it did, then all homosexuals would be experiencing pain and/or causing it in the same way.
And where's that clear answer to why it's a "sin" that I've been looking for?