Comments by "toothless toe" (@toothlesstoe) on "Memeable Data"
channel.
-
21
-
15
-
6
-
5
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sexylolimoon "There is nothing wrong with being sexual."
A perversion is not necessarily wrong, per se; it's defined as "the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended." Based on this definition, homosexuality isn't immoral, but it is a perversion, as it strays away from the purpose of sex and marriage. While straight sex can be perverted and immoral if it falls outside the bounds of marriage, that isn't the topic of discussion here.
"Also, not all women can have babies."
...therefore homosexuality is not a perversion? That logic makes no sense.
"Honesty is important to a relationship." Indeed it is, so I will appreciate said honesty and will politely decline a potential relationship if a woman tells me she also likes women. My preferences and beliefs aren't demeaning; you just interpret it that way. The label "biphobic" does not mean anything to me, and I will be less inclined to take anyone seriously who refers to me as such.
Also, homosexual unions do not count as marriage, since the purpose of marriage is to form a nuclear family, and gay people cannot do that, and straight people who get married but decline to have children are missing the point of marriage; it is one devoid of purpose. Also, it should be prioritized that children should be brought up by their biological parents, or at least a mother figure and a father figure. Gay couples should only be accepted for adopting children as a last resort if the former criterion cannot be met.
"Also, not everyone wants offspring or have a family."
Then you must concede that the act of sex in that instance is only for gratification and only serves to bastardize its purpose.
Anyway, I appreciate your lack of name-calling and willingness to engage honestly, but we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
1
-
@goddessstarla "If the law states that a gay couple is married, they are married and not unions."
That's an Appeal to Authority: Just because a government can legally declare what a marriage is, doesn't mean that's actually what it is. There is no good reason why a government would concern itself with people who merely love each other. That would make as much sense as a government upholding friendships. The only reason a government would be in the business of preserving relationships is if it involves one's own children, considering that they are the future of society, and without a stable family structure, they'll end up becoming unstable themselves, or worse, thus weakening or collapsing society in the process. Just take a look at the black community in the USA. Their community is in complete shambles because of an unstable family structure caused by scumbags like LBJ and others.
"Also, the idea of the nuclear family only started in the 20th century."
No, that idea goes all the way back to prehistoric times and beyond, because if you're family was unstable, you would be less equipped to deal with predators, and your community would collapse if every family was broken.
Anyway, thank you for the well wishes. I'll ponder on your thoughts further. Peace to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1