Quote:
Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
Wow. In case you didn't know, Santorum compared acts of homosexuality with bestiality and incest. I find all three deplorable: Bestiality, incest, and comparing homosexuality to these. Your non-arguments are warped in nature, and you've now more or less run *both* threads on homosexuality into the ground. Is there any reason at all I should listen to a word you say? Or should I just publicly call for your banning and call it a day?
Yeesh.
::wanders off until people decide to start debating again::
|
I find you hypocritical.
You have a problem with incest and bestiality, and I preume paedophilia, yet take issue with someone having a problem with homosexuality. Seems semantic to me.
It's all a matter of where you draw the line, not having a line at all. You have a line between included and excluded tolerated sexual practices.
You are no different from Santorum, it's just that where you have placed your dividing line is different. Your excercise of judgement, condemnation and intolerance is exactly the same - hence, is hypocritical, as you are doing the same thing, just arguing about where the line should be.
Why should someone that loves their pet be derided and condemned? Why should two siblings that manifest their love in sexual expression be condemned? It's all love isn't it? What is your reasoning in condemning one, but not the other? Nature?
Cross species attempts at intercourse is natural. So is incest. If your argument is that homosexuality is natural, but theses others is not, you are deluded.
What other arguments are there? C'mon, you must have strong ones, seeing as you're so prepared to condemn them, and yet condemn condemnation of homosexual sex.