Quote from Banebladeluv

I never said it was bad, number one.

Yes you did

Quote from Banebladeluv

I'm just pointing out that from a purely academic and biological standpoint homosexuality is wrong.

Quote from Gyohdon

Therefor, we can conclude that simply on a factual basis, being gay is against nature. It's wrong in the sense of that it's not what nature intended for us.

What would you say includes the set of things that are "natural"?

Everything that is and does as it was originally intended to be and do.

So I think gay people, vegetarians, all those kinds of people in a way are against nature.

Quote from Banebladeluv

wrong=/=bad

What's the difference? If something is wrong, then how can it still be not bad?

Quote from lolipops

Everything that is and does as it was originally intended to be and do.

So I think gay people, vegetarians, all those kinds of people in a way are against nature.

How do you conclude what nature intends for organisms to do if nature is not a sentient entity?
(By the way, that's not what nature is, nature refers to everything within the physical world)

Wrong
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous
not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice
out of order; awry; amiss

Bad
not good in any manner or degree.
having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible
of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient

Quote from Banebladeluv

Wrong
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous
not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice
out of order; awry; amiss

Your first definition can only apply to statements and ideals, not preferential actions. It's not erroneous that someone likes oranges over apples because opinion is an objective thing.
The second definition is also not applicable because it is easy to find out that social attitudes of what is "proper and usual" can and do change frequently. If there comes a time where the majority of people are homosexual, would you say it's no longer wrong? Do you think making your own religious decisions in a Puritan colony during the early stages of the United States is wrong?
The third isn't really a definition, it's just a list of synonyms. I find it interesting that you've chosen to leave out the definition of wrong which says unjust, dishonest, or *immoral*

(I won't be replying for some time any more because I need to go to bed)

So what if I omitted the definitions that don't suit my use of the word? I put up the ones that did suit my use of the word and it is with those connotations that I used it. Thats the English language, if you'd like I can change my language to either broken Spanish or even more broken German, but it won't change my point.

My first definition is spot on, deviation from truth or fact has nothing to do with opinion. Either you're right or you're wrong, there is no middle ground with facts.

My second is there to back up the first mostly. Not proper, its not proper to go against facts, because its wrong. Not within requirements backs up my statement that homosexuals cannot breed as they do not posses the proper facilities to breed themselves. And no, I don't care if I'm the last living heterosexual organism in existence, homosexuality is biologically unsound no matter what, thats a fact.

The last was just kinda there.

You keep trying to make this a moral debate when I've said now several times that this isn't about morals its about science and facts. I couldn't give a fuck less about bible thumpers nor LGBT rights activists, I care about what is factual, and what is false, what is moral and what is immoral is of no consequence to me.

Quote from Devour

There's also this magical thing called 'being happy' that people like to get from relationships. B-)

until it does the exact opposite, times 1,000.

Quote from Fusion

How do you conclude what nature intends for organisms to do if nature is not a sentient entity?
(By the way, that's not what nature is, nature refers to everything within the physical world)

I of course didn't mean it in that sense, but all parts of our body have or had some purpose.

Why do we have genitals? To procreate.
Why do we have anuses? To shit.

Being gay and putting your procreate-material into a shit-pooper is against it's intended purpose. It's not right, in the way that walking on the highway isn't right. You walk on the sidewalk and drive on the highway. If you do it differently, you're not doing it right.

.. thats only because humans set laws that say we're not supposed to drive on the sidewalk and walk on the highway. what a fucking shitty argument and metaphor.

Quote from 2-D

.. thats only because humans set laws that say we're not supposed to drive on the sidewalk and walk on the highway. what a fucking shitty argument and metaphor.

I was only explaining my usage of the word "wrong". What you said was irrelevant.

Maybe humans haven't evolved to the point of being able to procreate with same sex relationships or procreate asexually. But since I think evolution is fucking retarded, I have no clue what to say.

Quote from ChristianEater

Maybe humans haven't evolved to the point of being able to procreate with same sex relationships or procreate asexually. But since I think evolution is fucking retarded, I have no clue what to say.

Won't happen for another million years because there is no necessity for it.

humanity will be dead by then

I'm a smart teenager surrounded by stupid teenagers. And I look better than all of them.