Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
So you have nothing to add but I do. Whether consent is given or not is irrelevant. The fact that sex goes on and a person feels those urges makes that person partial to that type of sexuality. Therefore that person can a) use will power and over power those urges. b) go ahead with them.
It is a choice.
|
I don't have the power to will myself from being heterosexual. I could try as hard as I want, I will never find men sexually attractive, but maybe I am a weak individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
Talking about relations means you have something like love. Any real relationship is based on more than just sex. I am talking about people not needing to have sex with the same gender. They can be friends and leave it at that, if they want to follow certain principles. They can overcome their urges and fall in love with the opposite gender. Love has nothing to do with sexuality.
|
I agree. Love has nothing to do with sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
This is why it is valid to compare different types of sexual behaviour to homosexuality and use the same arguments, since ultimately it is a choice of what you want to do depending on what principles you follow.
Really they can do what they want but I am arguing from my perspective.
|
Again, I didn't choose my sexuality, it chose me. I am impressed that people have the ability to switch around what sexually stimulates them. Only girls for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
What do you mean I didn't want to answer the question and it's difficult. Wasn't it obvious that I thought none of the choices you mentioned are acceptable? Are you saying those types of couples are the only ones that exist in this world?
|
Hypothetical. That's all. But let's say Yes. There is one homeless child and two couples in the world that can take care of him, and you are the one that gets to choose. Which would you choose? Which couple gives the child less "disadvangtages". This is the third chance I am giving you to answer what is a relatively simple question. Or do you let the baby live on the streets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
This is why I said that obviously the suitability of a family is assessed before they are given care of a child. If both of those couples are unsuitable, the child wouldn't be given them!
The question you've posed is done so it can satisfy your own point. It has nothing to do with a real world situation, which is what i'm referring to.
|
I think it could be a very real world situation. And I'd like to see you explain to a child why he can't live an a big secure house with a loving family and financial security simply because his parents would be a mom and a mom, not a mom and a dad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y
It is hopelessly selfish because they chose to be partners in a way where they can not naturally conceive. Why should they be given the care of children just to satisfy their maternal longings?
The child needs a father and a mother and therefore it is hopelessly selfish of homosexual couples to expect to have children as well as be in the relationship of their choosing.
|
There's that choice word again. So I ask the question that couldn't be answered before. If two women wanted to be mothers, why would they CHOOSE a lifestyle where they couldn't procreate?