# Some people not ok with homosexuality.



## martryn (Feb 16, 2007)

Some people are turned off by the thought of butt sex between two guys.  They're entitled to not be ok with it.  If I said that I liked to shit on a chick's face and then lick it up, would you be disgusted?  Same fucking principle.  

I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.  I'm not homophobic.  I don't avoid gays.  I've known three or four gay guys personally, and it didn't bother me.  Regular people, with regular lives, sometimes funny stories.  It didn't bother me until they started talking about their private, intimate lives.  Then I'd get disgusted, throw my hands up, and leave the room, but that doesn't mean I dislike individual homosexuals.  

Please, people, be a little understanding here.  It seems everyone is quick to complain about gay rights and how the minority opinion is not being heard, when they're just as quick to turn around and tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves.  How can you promote open mindedness and viciously attack those who aren't afraid to voice the conservative opinion?


----------



## Buskuv (Feb 16, 2007)

I think I know where you're coming from.

It seems to me, that in some cases (Not all, mind you), there are those who scream for others to accept them, who want others to accept them for what they stand for. They want others to keep their opinions to themselves, yet are willing to shove their opinion down your throat whenever they please, because they are the minority. It really bothers me, for those who do.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Feb 16, 2007)

That's fine. I just hate people who think every single gay person is a clone of Jack from Will and Grace.


----------



## kisit (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.  I'm not homophobic.  I don't avoid gays.  I've known three or four gay guys personally, and it didn't bother me.  Regular people, with regular lives, sometimes funny stories.  It didn't bother me until they started talking about their private, intimate lives.  Then I'd get disgusted, throw my hands up, and leave the room, but that doesn't mean I dislike individual homosexuals.



I feel the same way, I have friends who are homosexuals and they are very nice people. They respect the fact that I am not gay and I respect them for who they are in turn. They do thier best not to display thier intimate sides with whomever they happen to be with while I'm around, as well. I personally don't feel there is anything wrong with homosexuality in general. People are entitled to live and love how they choose.


----------



## Booster Beetle (Feb 16, 2007)

*Gasp!* People are uncomfortable with homosexuality? Who'd have thought? I mean it's not like there are any discriminatory laws, fire and brimstone tv evangelists, tasteless jokes or good old fashioned bashing or anything that would lead me think some people aren't keen on the idea.

Seriously though? I don't care that some people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, just like I don’t care that some people are racist, unless they try to use THEIR issues to influence politics or as an excuse to dehumanize other individuals. You are uncomfortable with homosexuality? Well shout it loud and shout it proud, just understand that some people are going to think less of you for it, just like I fully expect some people to think a little less of me when I admit to liking 80's pop music. 

I notice you didn’t mention lesbians...they're cool, right?


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree totally. I don't avoid gays, but i am disgusted if they started getting gay around me.

Anyway i didn't get the shitting on a chick's face analogy


----------



## Joshy ♥ (Feb 16, 2007)

Homosexuality (well ANY sexuality) has never bothered me, I've grown up around homosexual guys (brother and his partners) so it really doesn't affect me all too much, though I don't like how gay guys generally look down on Lesbians. It's the same principle and it annoys me when they put lesbians down, likewise for lesbians though.

Alot of people I've met who are homosexual don't even seem it at first to be honest, I can't see why people have a problem with accepting people for who they are, I associate it a lot to do with this generation and how everything is linked to a "scene" 

small 2cents


----------



## martryn (Feb 16, 2007)

> Anyway i didn't get the shitting on a chick's face analogy



I personally find homosexuality disgusting.  It's not... normal, I guess.  I was trying to think of some extreme something that other people would find disgusting.  Other people are entitled not to be ok with that, so why can't I be entitled not to be ok with what I find disgusting?


----------



## olaf (Feb 16, 2007)

Booster Beetle said:


> I notice you didn?t mention lesbians...*they're cool, right?*


duh. guys love lesbians porn

and girls like gays


----------



## Buskuv (Feb 16, 2007)

Oneiros said:


> duh. guys love lesbians porn
> 
> and girls like gays


 
Of course they do.   

Not particullarly in my case, but whatever.

PS: Oh, Olaf, it's on now.


----------



## Booster Beetle (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> I personally find homosexuality disgusting.  It's not... normal, I guess.  I was trying to think of some extreme something that other people would find disgusting.  Other people are entitled not to be ok with that, so why can't I be entitled not to be ok with what I find disgusting?



Just out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on heterosexual anal sex?

(Oh, btw, I can understand being uncomfortable when two men are getting ‘sexual’ around you, but frankly I’m just as annoyed by ANY kind of public display of _lewd_ sexuality. It’s not about homosexuality so much as common courtesy.)


----------



## Buskuv (Feb 16, 2007)

Booster Beetle said:


> (Oh, btw, I can understand being uncomfortable when two men are getting ?sexual? around you, but frankly I?m just as annoyed by ANY kind of public display of _lewd_ sexuality. It?s not about homosexuality so much as common courtesy.)


 
I agree quite frankly there.  I don't like to see people copulating on my morning walks.  It's just not what I would like to start my day off with.  Gay, Straight, Beastial...


----------



## martryn (Feb 16, 2007)

> I notice you didn’t mention lesbians...they're cool, right?



I don't find it as disgusting, no, but I don't agree with lesbians either.  I don't find anything wrong with a sorta bisexuality or sexual experimentation, either, I just strongly disagree with people who for some reason don't do normal, man and woman, sex.  

To me its really both the penetration aspect of man on man and the destruction of the family and family values, since I don't really see healthy families in a homosexual union.  Reasons aside, though, that's not the point of the thread.



> Just out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on heterosexual anal sex?



I'm not really up for anal at all.  I don't want to penetrate a girl's anus, and under no circumstances am I going to have mine violated.  I'd give it to a girl if she wanted to try it, but I'd not expect it to be a mainstay in a sexual relationship.


----------



## Scorpio3.14 (Feb 16, 2007)

Agreed with Topic creator. Disliking Homosexuality does not equal disliking homosexuals. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like everything that everyone else does. I can disagree with someone's actions without hating them or discriminating against them because of it. Just respect that other people have different views then you and move on with it. Its as simple as that and it works both ways.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

My litmus test for these things is to substitute to word "black" for "gay". If you can pass that you're pretty much up to snuff.

Funny enough my best friend is quite openly homosexual. You know how many times he's described the feel of a throbbing cock in someones ass? Not once, and I've talked to the guy virtuall every day for years. Gays are just like anyone else (aside from the queens, but that's another issue), the only difference is that they have manlove. They, like normal people, don't go out of their way to describe personal lives to complete strangers. Chances are they trust you enough to confide, and what's so disgusting about saying "Me and Steve went out last night and I totally scored dude!" Do you get disgusted if a straight friend says as much?


----------



## Sakura (Feb 16, 2007)

People want to be gay - let them be.


----------



## Leanne (Feb 16, 2007)

Why are gays any differend? They are just attracted to the same sex, I don't see a problem with that. It's not like they will jump on you or.. that you have to watch them having sex or anything. Just accept that it exists and don't make such a big problem of it. It's not wrong in my opinion, far from wrong. You might not see it every day, but that doesn't mean there has to be looked at differently. Actually, I hate the fact that a lot of guys hate gay guys and have no problems with lesbian girls. The principal is the same, only the sex if differend. Which you don't have to see AND everybody may be happy. Love is such a beautiful thing.. share it with the people YOU love and don't be what others want you to be or expect you to be. I am bisexual myself and I feel ok about it, no stress. It is just the way I am and people are pretty cool about gay people around here. I didn't tell them just yet, but I grew up in a good family with open-minded people so it should be n problem. I fall for people and not for the outside. Though I still prefer guys, but I can also feel attracted to some girls. And I can't understand peopel who aren't ok with homosexuality and they most of the time have bad arguments. It's true.. I had a big discussion with some once and all they have to say it is "unnatural". Well big deal, it is not your life. 

You can't foce yourself to like someone, it just happends.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 16, 2007)

> They, like normal people, don't go out of their way to describe personal lives to complete strangers. Chances are they trust you enough to confide, and what's so disgusting about saying "Me and Steve went out last night and I totally scored dude!" Do you get disgusted if a straight friend says as much?



Because he finds homosexuality disgusting. He is going too be annoyed at one more than the other. You missed the point.

I agree with the thread starter anyway, disliking homosexuality does not equal disliking homosexuals.


----------



## Shevek (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> I'm not really up for anal at all.  I don't want to penetrate a girl's anus, and under no circumstances am I going to have mine violated.  I'd give it to a girl if she wanted to try it, but I'd not expect it to be a mainstay in a sexual relationship.


Please stop talking about your disgusting hetero-sex. Fine, do what you want - in your bedroom. Don't talk about it, and I won't ask.


----------



## martryn (Feb 16, 2007)

> "Me and Steve went out last night and I totally scored dude!" Do you get disgusted if a straight friend says as much?



Yeah, I would be disgusted by it.  That's the point.  I'm not ok with that.  Doesn't mean I dislike my friend or this Steve fellow.  

It's like drugs.  Half of my friends are serious drug users.  I'm not cool with that, but they're still my friends and I still hang out with them.  And I'm still gonna vote to keep weed illegal.  

Or smoking.  I find smoking disgusting, and I don't want to be around it.  I have friends who smoke, though, and I don't stop associating with them or tell them to stop.  And I'm gonna vote to keep smoking out of public places.  

I know a lot of you will disagree, but to me, it's the same concept as homosexuality.  I find it disgusting, I don't want to hear about it or talk about it or know about it, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna avoid homosexuals or act differently around them or anything like that.  I'm still gonna vote against gay marriage though.  My opinion, I'm entitled to it, so stop generalizing me.



> Please stop talking about your disgusting hetero-sex. Fine, do what you want - in your bedroom. Don't talk about it, and I won't ask.



Anyone against hetero-sex is an extremist, and I view them as against humanity and the propagation of the species.  Yeah, I hate you.  Again, my opinion and I'm entitled to it.


----------



## keiiya (Feb 16, 2007)

There are things that yo*u* agree with.
There are thing yo*u* disagree with.
Things yo*u* like.
Things yo*u* dislike.

It's _fine _to have an *opinion *as long as yo*u* treat everyone with the _*same *_respect yo*u* would expect from them.


----------



## Soraclaws (Feb 16, 2007)

People just want to be treated equally in society, same with gays and lesbians, but people look down on others who are pretty much the same as them and have done nothing but be different. It really ticks me off how people are so biased against these people and it pisses me off more how some gays and lesbians look down on eachother. We should all just chill out and stop fretting over them, and then just maybe we could all live peacefully. Sadly I don't think it will ever happen, but hey I can hope.


----------



## Shevek (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> Anyone against hetero-sex is an extremist, and I view them as against humanity and the propagation of the species.  Yeah, I hate you.  Again, my opinion and I'm entitled to it.


"I'm not homophobic".


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 16, 2007)

Booster Beetle said:
			
		

> just like I fully expect some people to think a little less of me when I admit to liking 80's pop music.



Urgh... you sick fuck.

I love it how every racist trots out black friends and every homphobe trots out gay friends as if this somehow makes them less racist and homphobic.

Compare "I'm not gonna avoid homosexuals or act differently around them or anything like that. I'm still gonna vote against gay marriage though."

With "I'm not gonna avoid blacks or act differently around them or anything like that. I'm still gonna vote against the abolition of slavery though."


----------



## Gunners (Feb 16, 2007)

> "I'm not homophobic".



Yeah he didn't say he hated you because you were gay, he disliked you for the logic you tried using.


----------



## Chi (Feb 16, 2007)

I don't have problems with gay people, as long as they don't "throw" their gayness in my face.
For example like their parades and stuff..
Ok. You'r gay, I'm straight. No need to go and scream about it on the streets, with showing your privates and whatnot.

Though, i don't like idea of gay buttsmex, I'm lucky, that no one has ever spoke about such private topic in my presence..
If they will ever try, I'll just change the subject, or leave the room..


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> Yeah, I would be disgusted by it.  That's the point.  I'm not ok with that.  Doesn't mean I dislike my friend or this Steve fellow.



So ... you're cloistered? 

Just be out with it, you're uncomfortable with sex period or you're simply a bitter permavirgin. Given your rather kneejerk conservative status, either one of these or a combination of them is likely.

Imagine going up to your mother and saying "Hey mom, I'm disgusted by women, but I love you anyways." That _cannot_ jive when you self-admittenly hate something that's _integral_ to a person.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

Ok. You don't like gay sex. So what?
And please describe in detail what you see these family values to be, and just how one would go about destroying them.


----------



## Zodd (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> So ... you're cloistered?
> 
> Just be out with it, you're uncomfortable with sex period or you're simply a bitter permavirgin. Given your rather kneejerk conservative status, either one of these or a combination of them is likely.



Or he secretly harbors homosexual fantasies. :spwank   


J/k Martryn. If you dislike homosexuality, I think you're still okay. Just don't hate people, like these creatures. 



BTW, what Hardaway did was not okay. He said he hates "gays," not homosexuality. And he volunteers with groups of young people, so he's giving them the unhealthy impression that homosexuality is wrong.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 16, 2007)

Hum, for some reason, I too agree with martryn, on the point that he has a right to say he doesn't approve homosexuality. I mean, I don't approve some capitalistic concepts, I dislike some food, I HATE people that think they're teh shit ("yeah, I'm soooo better than all of you" I just can't stand people with zero humility), but I don't go on rampage at them.

Quite frankly, I don't like homosexuality too. It's not a question of hate. Just that the mental images pop in my head and I feel uneasy (I even had a nightmare where I fet something going in'n'out my ass... I know I don't feel like being gay, now) 

I think its because I grew up in a mentality that resents that. And after I understood that, I started to make efforts to be accepting (better than just being tolerant. There's a subtile difference) of their lifestyle. I wouldn't like to live like them, but since I'm not concerned, I don't have to feel any hate, anger, disgust at them.

Just 2 hours ago, I had a discussion with a counselor for job (she helps people understand themselves better to find the job they'd love the best to give the best of themselves) She told me something about self confidence. It didn't really concerned me, but it was kinda related. She used to work in a company with some guy that was always wimpy and sad,  his sentimental life was a wreckage, and was having effects on his effeciency. 

Then one day, she met him again, and he introduced her to his "friend". Turns out he discovered he was gay. And since he accepted his feelings, and started to live with that guy, he was able to feel better and became the best at his work.

I had a strange feeling upon hearing that story. Didn't really have anything to do with it directly. I didn't feel disgusted, or uneasy when she said the word "homosexual". I didn't really thought of it as bad or good. It just was. Also, I understood that this guy was able to free himself from his misery by admitting his pulsions. As we have now etablished, a great mant of people didn't choose to be gay. They just are. Trying to repress them for that is as wrong as forcing left-handed peopel to be right-handed some decades ago (mum had to undergo that "re-education")

Some say that he "turned" gay because it was a way to escape his sadness or to deny his problems by jumping into something "artificial". But if he's happy, what's my problem with it ? None. If he lies to himself, what does have to do with me ? Nothing. And what if it's the people that think he lies to himself because they think it and don't try to understand him ? It's possible. Some say religious people lie to themselves, that atheists lie to themselves, etc... So what ? Their problem. People can disagree, but they should not rub their opinion in the others faces (that goes for both gays and anti-gays.)

So now, I feel that, even if I think I'll always feel uneasy near gay people, I'm able anyway to accept them as they are. They are gay, I am not. Why should I feel concerned ? Why should I bother them or look down on them ?
There's no reason for that save the societal pressure I've grown up with.

Wow, that was a long post.


----------



## Kami-Sama (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm a hetero, and i don't go to my friends and say: "damn i just boned this chick last night....." and go into details.

and you know why?.... because they don't need to know that shit.

the same thing with homosexuals... they are not going to bring out a topic out of their personal life, not because it disgust you... because it is generally disappropiate to talk about those things, much less with ppl that doesn't have that kind of trust...

the same thing can be expected with male-friend and woman-friend talking to each other... i have a best friend (female one) which i don't go into details on what i do with my GF or much less talk about what or when on the sex we have... because she doesn't care....

you're are confusing the not being and dissaproving in the same terms...

the fact that i'm not homosexual doesn't mean i do disapprove it, it mean that i'm not homosexual and for those who are great and enjoy your life with peace, and i will vote for the marriage because it is THEIR RIGHT.

i don't have to tolerate homosexuality because there's nothing to tolerate.

and please don't compare homosexuality with drugs.... drugs destroy lives the same way ppl who hate homosexuals destroy lives, now that a good comparison.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> My litmus test for these things is to substitute to word "black" for "gay". If you can pass that you're pretty much up to snuff.
> 
> Funny enough my best friend is quite openly homosexual. You know how many times he's described the feel of a throbbing cock in someones ass? Not once, and I've talked to the guy virtuall every day for years. Gays are just like anyone else (aside from the queens, but that's another issue), the only difference is that they have manlove. They, like normal people, don't go out of their way to describe personal lives to complete strangers. Chances are they trust you enough to confide, and what's so disgusting about saying "Me and Steve went out last night and I totally scored dude!" Do you get disgusted if a straight friend says as much?



Black isn't gay. It pisses me of to no end with this comparison. Not the same. Got it?????


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

Kami-Sama said:


> drugs destroy lives


Now that is something I can agree with unequivocally.


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Feb 16, 2007)

haha, last night a gay couple broke up. It was hilarious. More like a freak show actually..

anyway, i find butt sex nasty. I find shitting on a person's face nasty. Do I find homosexuality disgusting? Hell yeah. If they break up and cry about it that even more funny.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Black isn't gay. It pisses me of to no end with this comparison. Not the same. Got it?????



Translation: I'm whining because your point about hating things that are not a persons choice via simple word substitition effectively makes me a racist. Heneforth, I shall whine and try to rebutt your point via proclaimations with no support or actual substance save trying to be self-evident, which still fails.

Rebuttal: Cry more, if you can actually disprove this via well thought out and logical argumentation feel free, otherwise you're a trivial annoyance.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Translation: I'm whining because your point about hating things that are not a persons choice via simple word substitition effectively makes me a racist. Heneforth, I shall whine and try to rebutt your point via proclaimations with no support or actual substance save trying to be self-evident, which still fails.
> 
> Rebuttal: Cry more, if you can actually disprove via well thought out and logical argumentation this feel free, otherwise you're a trivial annoyance.



You are not witty. Prove to me gay is a race. Until then, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Black isn't gay. It pisses me of to no end with this comparison. Not the same. Got it?????



Of course being black and being gay is not the same thing. No one is saying it is.  I think you've completely missed the point of the comparison.



> Prove to me gay is a race. Until then, shut the fuck up.



Black isn't technically a race in the first place...


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Of course being black and being gay is not the same thing. No one is saying it is.  I think you've completely missed the point of the comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> Black isn't technically a race in the first place...



All I'm saying is....... ah fuck it.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> You are not witty. Prove to me gay is a race. Until then, shut the fuck up.



Okay, replace the word with "woman"  we can agree sexism is wrong no?

This is of course not the point. Whereas you may dispute my wit, I dispute your fundamental grasp of reality. The point of using blacks isn't to try and protray gays as a "race", it's using it as an example of how sexual orientation, much like skin color, is immutable and predetermined rather then a choice. 

Since racism is hatred against someone due to an innate trait and we all agree racism is wrong, why is that we can hold another innate trait against someone without it being wrong?

This of course will be lost on you as your feeble mind falls short of this elementry logic, I do wonder why I bother sometimes with vermin such as yourself.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Okay, replace the word with "woman"  we can agree sexism is wrong no?
> 
> This is of course not the point. Whereas you may dispute my wit, I dispute your fundamental grasp of reality. The point of using blacks isn't to try and protray gays as a "race", it's using it as an example of how sexual orientation, much like skin color, is immutable and predetermined rather then a choice.
> 
> ...



Vermin? You elitist slime.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Vermin? You elitist slime.



There's nothing wrong with being an elitist when you're the best


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 16, 2007)

I have little issue with gays. One of my roomates/best friends is gay. However he acts extremely heterosexual. You really wouldn't be able to tell unless topics such as dating were brought up really. Plus the gays piss off the Islamists. I love them as a result.

Anyway, not my concern what people have sex with.


----------



## Dionysus (Feb 16, 2007)

Is this all some excuse to continue discrimination against homosexuality?


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> There's nothing wrong with being an elitist when you're the best



Delusional as well. But the point is that homosexuality is most likely a genetic defect while the people of Africa have dark skin to deal with the harsh climate 


Dionysus said:


> Is this all some excuse to continue discrimination against homosexuality?



Nope. People just feel like they are forced to be like homosexuality.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

I completely agree with matryn. I dislike the idea of homosexuality but I dont go around with tar and feathers.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 16, 2007)

> My litmus test for these things is to substitute to word "black" for "gay". If you can pass that you're pretty much up to snuff.



QFT

So martryn, would it be ok to say I don't like people being black, but I am ok with blakc people?  If that is ok, then so is your statement.



> Yeah, I would be disgusted by it. That's the point. I'm not ok with that. Doesn't mean I dislike my friend or this Steve fellow.



but would you mind it if you friend said I went out last night with jill and scroed with her?  I mean, its the same thing.  Some people just don't like any displays of affection.  I think you should have whatever standard you want, just hold people to the same standard.



> Anyone against hetero-sex is an extremist, and I view them as against humanity and the propagation of the species. Yeah, I hate you. Again, my opinion and I'm entitled to it.



ok, what if we said hetero sex was wrong and disgusting BUT we supported test tube babies and the continuation of the human race.



> I don't have problems with gay people, as long as they don't "throw" their gayness in my face.
> For example like their parades and stuff..



well, what about people throwing there straightness in other people's face?  Agaion, I just think people should be held to the same standard.  Some people don't like to mention any sort of sexuality at all.

As for the parades, if they weren't discriminated agaisnt so much, were treated equally, and given the same rights, there wouldnt' be parades.  Sort of like how there were black 'parades', except we called them marches during the civil rights movement.



> Imagine going up to your mother and saying "Hey mom, I'm disgusted by women, but I love you anyways." .



again, this is the exact same thing.



> and please don't compare homosexuality with drugs.... drugs destroy lives the same way ppl who hate homosexuals destroy lives, now that a good comparison.



so true



> Black isn't gay. It pisses me of to no end with this comparison. Not the same. Got it?????



but it is.  Both are things about you that you cannot control, and say NOTHING about who you are, just how people view you.



> Prove to me gay is a race. Until then, shut the fuck up.



what is race?  It is a difference in a person that they cannot controll and doesnt' affect who you are at all.  Sexual orientation is the same concept, not the same thing, just the same concept.  A difference that people will discriminate against you for.  Or like being female or male.  A differenc you can't control, which people discrimiante agianst you for.  You are still human.  that is why it is the same thing, not as in race = sexual oreintation, but in the concept.

oh, NOS kind fo said the same thing...  but I said it without anything mean, so I will leave it.

And does this have to do with tim hardaway?  If he caem out and said I hate women the NBA would have gotten rid of him too.  Its their choice, they want to be very PC.  Plus le batard gave him an opt out, he didn't take it, he said yeah I realize what I said was hateful and prejudice, that is because I hate gay people and they shouldn't exist.  Its like if he had said I hate black people and they shouldn't exist, except because its more ok to hate gay people than black people, there is a smaller uproar.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Delusional as well. But the point is that homosexuality is most likely a genetic defect while the people of Africa have dark skin to deal with the harsh climate


Prove it. If you can't, then what you've said here is just a baseless opinion.

Besides, I can't believe one's sexuality is entirely dependent on whether one gene is on or off. There is so much subversive sexuality being broadcast around us every day, and it's been proven the environment does influence perceptions/preconceptions of beauty and sexuality.
Also, your one line responses are tiring. And I dislike purple. Backing your strange opinions up with logical and detailed responses instead of zingers would be a better way of making you special.


----------



## Dionysus (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Nope. People just feel like they are forced to be like homosexuality.


Are you sure?  He made an analogy with drugs.  He hates drugs.  He has drug user friends who, he says, he doesn't hate.  He will not vote to legalise recreational drugs.  (This is a poor analogy do to drug use being, initially, a choice, usually.)

Perhaps Martryn can clarify.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> Prove it. If you can't, then what you've said here is just a baseless opinion.
> 
> Besides, I can't believe one's sexuality is entirely dependent on whether one gene is on or off. There is so much subversive sexuality being broadcast around us every day, and it's been proven the environment does influence perceptions/preconceptions of beauty and sexuality.
> Also, your one line responses are tiring. And I dislike purple. Backing your strange opinions up with logical and detailed responses instead of zingers would be a better way of making you special.



This is why I dislike these debates. I'm looking up info now. I'll be back, with purple text


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

wait, whats wrong with "okay I hate blacks, but I like you anyways." isnt one entitled to opinions?  Cant somebody disagree with ones outlook/philosophy/view yet agree with the person because of the person? I dislike the idea of homosexuality yet I have gay friends. does that make me a homophobe? Am i being ignored because i'm sigless or avyless?does anyone have the answers to my question?


----------



## Near (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> Prove it. If you can't, then what you've said here is just a baseless opinion.
> 
> Besides, I can't *believe* one's sexuality is entirely dependent on whether one gene is on or off.



....seriously.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Delusional as well. But the point is that homosexuality is most likely a genetic defect while the people of Africa have dark skin to deal with the harsh climate




Defect? You do know it's actually advantegous to have people who aren't tied down with children of their own in society right? Of course you wouldn't, you wouldn't know facts if it materialized and hit you in the face with a shovel.

Down's syndrome is a genetic defect, someone perferring their own kind inhibits their natural survival and basic abilities in no function whatsoever. If you're going to use a word, at least know what it means you simplistic tart.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> This is why I dislike these debates. I'm looking up info now. I'll be back, with purple text


You dislike that people ask you to support your claims? Ok, I'd like to see this Gay Gene if you can find it.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> You dislike that people ask you to support your claims? Ok, I'd like to see this Gay Gene if you can find it.



Well, riddle me this batman. Why would we have gays in societies which villify it? You can't honestly expect gays to come out of conservative christian households given environmental factors can you?


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

GutZ said:


> ....seriously.


Yeah, seriously. I have beliefs based on a rational examination of how people view and develop sexual desires. If everyone said penis was hot, I'm inclined to believe that some people would be swain to it.
I can find some data to support this if you like. That social conventions of beauty directly effect sexuality.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

Urban War Zone

Genetic causes and such.



> ev?o?lu?tion (ĕv'ə-lū'shən, ē'və-) pronunciation
> n.
> 
> 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
> ...



Homosexuality is a defect. What is does for the human race as a whole?

@That NOS Guy: It's not advantageous to the human race.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Well, riddle me this batman. Why would we have gays in societies which villify it? You can't honestly expect gays to come out of conservative christian households given environmental factors can you?


We have bikers in a society that vilifies them. We have proponents of abortion in a society that vilifies them. Some people like being different. Some people dislike their roots. Some people just are the way they are.
People are unique, and lobbing all homosexuals into genepool is about as realistic as putting everyone that hates mushrooms into a genepool.
Or people that like purple.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Homosexuality is a defect. What is does for the human race as a whole?
> 
> @That NOS Guy: It's not advantageous to the human race.



If you had read anything I posted (an ability I highly doubt) you'd be quick to point out _I already provided a social advantage that having people without children provide_. It's incredibly advantageous to people to have a spare set of hands that aren't tied down by dependents. How is this a shortcoming?

Variation =/= defect. 

You also still have yet to meet my challenge to show how being gay affects survival skills. Going by your logic down's syndrome or loose joints are defects too, should we openly discriminate against people with those? Oh nevermind, I'd forgotten I was talking to a retard homself.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Down's syndrome is a genetic defect, someone perferring their own kind inhibits their natural survival and basic abilities in no function whatsoever. If you're going to use a word, at least know what it means you simplistic tart.



So? Selection is alll about PASSING ON YOUR GENES, aka, having as many surviving/reproducing children as possible. Or it works if you have behaviour that increases the reproductive rates of your close family. 

Hence being gay could be named a genetic defect. 

But its not completely genetical either. Look at Sparta Greece. This is an extreme example but does show that nurture has some influence.


----------



## Kami-Sama (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> wait, whats wrong with "okay I hate blacks, but I like you anyways." isnt one entitled to opinions?  Cant somebody disagree with ones outlook/philosophy/view yet agree with the person because of the person? I dislike the idea of homosexuality yet I have gay friends. does that make me a homophobe? Am i being ignored because i'm sigless or avyless?does anyone have the answers to my question?



then i will respond since i have an avy and sig so it'll make you happy.



> wait, whats wrong with "okay I hate blacks, but I like you anyways." isnt one entitled to opinions?



1. you're entitled to your opinion... but that doesn't make them right.
2. hating/disapproving is a tricky word, much more the second one... why?... since you're disapproving then you're admiting in your own opinion that there's something wrong, which in this case it isn't, there's nothing wrong with being an homosexual, nothing to be "cure", not a bad descision, not an off gene, it's something you come to realize the same way you like blonde, brunettes, redhead,..it is a sexual preference and there's nothing wrong with that.
3. going off by number two, the bad thing of the disapproving/hate mentality is that if it is wrong, then it must be "fixed" and that's where the problem lies... as there's nothing to fix. 
4. the analogy with blacks is a perfect one, since it proves how defective is the way most people think about homosexuality, since most of the statements used to attack homosexuality if changed to a black statement could create an uproar and rightly so... the same way should be with homosexuals....



> I dislike the idea of homosexuality yet I have gay friends. does that make me a homophobe?



you're halfway there son, you can't like the idea of being black and have black friends at the same time, then you would be an hipocrate(sp).

the way i see it (and this is my opinion) and that i'm not gay, i approve it for those who are, the same way i approve blacks, north americans, europeans and the same way i like to be approved as a latino.

it;s just something that you are. nothing to be dealt.


----------



## Booster Beetle (Feb 16, 2007)

I don't understand why it matters if Homosexuality is genetic or not. I entertain the possibility, but I'm not sure I'm willing to fully accept it as fact at this point. That said, I don't think homosexuality is a conscious choice. I don't think someone wakes up one day and says 'You know what? I think I'm going to be gay!' anymore than someone wakes up one day and says 'I'm going to have a temper' or 'I'm going to shy.'  I think homosexuality probably is the result of a number of different factors, most of which are beyond the individual’s control.

The idea that someone chooses to be gay in the same way they choose what socks they're going to wear in the morning is absolutely ludicrous

So yeah, I don’t think it matters WHY someone is homosexual, the fact is they are. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone then they shouldn’t have to suffer moral judgement and people telling them that their relationships are less valid just because of the gender of the people involved.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

> Oh nevermind, I'd forgotten I was talking to a retard homself.


WTF is wrong with you?Must you insult? ur a smart guy you dont have to resort to name calling


> _I already provided a social advantage that having people without children provide_


 Your right, it's a lot easier to survive without kids. But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.





> 3. going off by number two, the bad thing of the disapproving/hate mentality is that if it is wrong, then it must be "fixed" and that's where the problem lies...


I believe there is nothing wrong with disaproving with something as long as you dont try to force it. if it's not stated as a fact an opinion is okay to have.





> you're entitled to your opinion... but that doesn't make them right.


Agreed.





> since you're disapproving then you're admiting in your own opinion that there's something wrong, which in this case it isn't, there's nothing wrong with being an homosexual, nothing to be "cure", not a bad descision, not an off gene, it's something you come to realize the same way you like blonde, brunettes, redhead,..it is a sexual preference and there's nothing wrong with that.


No argument here





> the analogy with blacks is a perfect one, since it proves how defective is the way most people think about homosexuality, since most of the statements used to attack homosexuality if changed to a black statement could create an uproar and rightly so... the same way should be with homosexuals....


there is a difference, One can be viewed as a defect and therefore should not be endorsed. The other cannot.

offtopic but your avy is hot.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> We have bikers in a society that vilifies them. We have proponents of abortion in a society that vilifies them. Some people like being different. Some people dislike their roots. Some people just are the way they are.
> People are unique, and lobbing all homosexuals into genepool is about as realistic as putting everyone that hates mushrooms into a genepool.



Alright fine, we're completely ignoring that these households openly advocate _killing homosexuals_, not just thinking badly about them as we do for say, bikers.Some people want to be different (if that's worth taking a cock in your ass, some people will go to extremes), but being different even if they know it means exile and even death threats? That's some terrific angst.

Let's shoot at this from another angle then. Animals throughout nature have noted homosexual tendencies, can animals make functional decesions regarding rebellion agianst the sexual norm?



Red said:


> WTF is wrong with you?Must you insult? ur a smart guy you dont have to resort to name calling



I have little tolerence for those who dwell, ney, revel in their ignorance. 



Red said:


> Your right, it's a lot easier to survive without kids. But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



Cite your source on that being defective. Are men with low sperm counts defective?

The fact that it's a social advantage for the whole means that while it is a variance, it's a benefical mutation. It affords some benefit to society, this is why it's not a defect in the range of something like an actual inhibitive defect like Down's.



			
				Indignation said:
			
		

> He's angry because I'm right.



Maybe you'll retort next time with "I know you are but what am I?"


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> WTF is wrong with you?Must you insult? ur a smart guy you dont have to resort to name calling
> Your right, it's a lot easier to survive without kids. But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



He's angry because I'm right.


----------



## Zephos (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> WTF is wrong with you?Must you insult? ur a smart guy you dont have to resort to name calling
> Your right, it's a lot easier to survive without kids. But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



Which would be great if life had a primary objective.


----------



## Kami-Sama (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> WTF is wrong with you?Must you insult? ur a smart guy you dont have to resort to name calling
> Your right, it's a lot easier to survive without kids. But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



i responded to you and failed to respond.



> But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are  defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



is not a deficiency, so if i don't want to have kids and be married to a woman, am i defective?


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

Kami-Sama said:


> is not a deficiency, so if i don't want to have kids and be married to a woman, am i defective?



Yes.........


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

Zephos said:


> Which would be great if life had a primary objective.


one of the primary objective in life is to multiply


> *A conventional definition*: Often scientists say that life is a characterstic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
> 
> : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
> : Being composed of one or more , which are the basic units of life.
> ...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Haha ow wow. Wiki articles.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Let's shoot at this from another angle then. Animals throughout nature have noted homosexual tendencies, can animals make functional decesions regarding rebellion agianst the sexual norm?


We aren't talking about animals, we are talking about people. Your point is mute, animals lack self awareness, they can't make rational decisions anyway.
Genetics are a factor, and not a reason for homosexuality. People use toys to masturbate- and that isn't deemed unnatural.
I can think of several factors to why a person raised in a fundamentalist Christian home might become gay.
Repressed sexual feelings due to such households not discussing sex.
Finding an identity outside the expectations of your controlling parents.
The double standard of the family to avoid sex out of wedlock- which might lead to homo sex activity like sports, and avoidance of sexual situations.
It feels good- this can't be totally attributed to a gene. Remember, so does masturbation.
Fall in love with someone that is gay- love can come at you from any direction.
A sudden change in brain chemistry- for whatever reasons, could be diet, could be the exercise, a person could start liking the same sex.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

> i responded to you and failed to respond.


That WTF statment wasnt directed to you. I edited my earlier post if you want you can take a look at it.





> Cite your source on that being defective. Are men with low sperm counts defective?


yes men with low sperm count are defective as with women with their wombs destroyed. they cant preform an operation that is a characteristic for life therefore they are defective. This is my own conclusion and the basis for it is solid IMO.


----------



## Kimi Sama (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree completely. 

I find the idea of two men having sex fairly disgusting. I don't want to see or hear about two guys having sex or even kissing if I can help it in the slighest.

That said, I'm completely fine with the idea of homosexuality, and I don't think homosexuals are degenerate or some how lesser people than heterosexuals, and I won't think less of someone for being a homosexual. Indeed I have several homosexual or bisexual friends of both genders.

It's somewhat along the same lines of how I find the idea of two ugly fat people having sex an unappealing thought. But that doesnt mean I hate all ugly fat people and think ugly fat people having sex is wrong. I just don't want to hear about it, that's all.

To quote Stephen Fry; "What you do with your penis or your bottom or anything else is so supremely irrelevant in a moral sense. It's what we do with our personalities and other people that matters."


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

> Haha ow wow. Wiki articles.


Is there something wrong with that? and also this article is cited in many text books If you you doubt me you are welcome to verify.


----------



## neko-sennin (Feb 16, 2007)

martryn said:


> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.



Unfortunately, many other people can't seem to tell the difference. Their fear of other people's sexuality blinds them to others' humanity. The reason why homosexuals have been quiet for centuries, and now speak out so loudly is because you don't typically get beaten within an inch of your life and left for dead for being hetero.

All they are asking for is their love to be recognized as human. Personally, as long as it's consensual, and doesn't impose itself on children or animals, I don't see what the problem is. At least half of society's psychological problems originate with political, religious and family leaders' fearful and repressive attitudes toward sexuality.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Haha ow wow. Wiki articles.



what about the whole theory of selection and evolution? Fitness and all? Ring a bell?

And your whole, benefitiary of society is very very minimal if nonexistant.... 

You can look at homosexuality as a "genetic" defect. A minor one, slightly affecting fitness. As in most cases in history (apart from current time), homosexuals still got children.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 16, 2007)

> wait, whats wrong with "okay I hate blacks, but I like you anyways."



I disagree with it, but I would support someones right to say it.  I am just saying they are the same thing.

And indignition, maybe being black is a defect.  Maybe people were just never meant to live in africa.  Its about just as much BS as your idea.



> But biologically organisms that cant reproduce due to certain factors (mentality, age, health) are defctive, because a primary objective of life is to procreate.



or they could be the result of an evolutionary trend trying to cut down the population.



> there is a difference, One can be viewed as a defect and therefore should not be endorsed. The other cannot.



Ok, I will say first I don't agree with what I am going to say

*being black is a defect.  Blakc people are inferior to white people.  They are less inteligent, less attractive, less fit, simply less.  Therefore it would be superior to be white, so being black is a defect.*

its not true, but everyone can come up with a reason to justify hate if they try hard enough.



> one of the primary objective in life is to multiply



actually, I would the primary objective is to survive.  Which is why hwen you have enough of hte population people may naturally move to homosexuality, and it may be a good thing that helps people survive, which makes it not a defect.

A defect is something which hinders NOT the passing on of genes as an individaul, but as a species.  Becuase homosexuality would allow humans to create fewer offspring, it means humanity would need fewer resources, so they would not experience a lack of recourceses.  So it help the species to survive, and is in fact a positive tool.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 16, 2007)

sj2k said:


> I disagree with it, but I would support someones right to say it.  I am just saying they are the same thing.
> 
> And indignition, maybe being black is a defect.  Maybe people were just never meant to live in africa.  Its about just as much BS as your idea.
> 
> ...



Ya right. This post is weak. This makes no sense.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 16, 2007)

neko-sennin said:


> Unfortunately, many other people can't seem to tell the difference. Their fear of other people's sexuality blinds them to others' humanity. The reason why homosexuals have been quiet for centuries, and now speak out so loudly is because you don't typically get beaten within an inch of your life and left for dead for being hetero.



Hum, that's pretty correct. Some people say that the proportion of homosexuals didn't rise (the pro.por.tion, you know, %), they just have more space to come out in countries that practice freedom as a lifestyle. Especially after the sexual revolution. There are more of them because they feel like coming out more. 

Thinking about it, being gay or hetero is part of personnal freedom. Judging them is like judging their freedom that they don't want to have taken away.

But really, isn't it pointless ? One dislikes gay or homosexuality, yet, there's nothing to be done against homosexuality, or it'll be personnal liberty infringement, so why keep on complaining about it, and not complaining more seriously about real serious matters like drugs, violence and social misery ? Homosexuality seems so minor to me when confronting it to problems that I consider far more serious.


----------



## Zephos (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> one of the primary objective in life is to multiply
> 
> "wikipedia stuff"



The function of our naughty bits = primary objective of life.
You seem to think this is a simple fact based arguement.
Its highly arguable science.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> We aren't talking about animals, we are talking about people. Your point is mute, animals lack self awareness, they can't make decisions anyway.



Humans are part of the animal kingdom, no? 

It's precisely because they lack self-awareness they're a perfect case study. Genetics would be the only cause there, not cultural issues.



Chrono Nexus said:


> Genetics are a factor, and not a reason for homosexuality. People use toys to masturbate- and that isn't deemed unnatural.



Who the hell are you talking too?



Chrono Nexus said:


> I can think of several factors to why a person raised in a fundamentalist Christian home might become gay.



So they embrace something that they know will mean a shitload of trouble?



Chrono Nexus said:


> Repressed sexual feelings due to such households not discussing sex.
> Finding an identity outside the expectations of your controlling parents



No, villifying sex and stressing that it's only for procreation is what goes on in these households. Even if we're buying that they're going out experimenting after getting into the world chances are a non-homosexual male is going to find gay sex _extremely_ distasteful and wouldn't continue past a one time occurance.



Chrono Nexus said:


> The double standard of the family to avoid sex out of wedlock- which might lead to homo sex activity like sports, and avoidance of sexual situations.
> It feels good- this can't be totally attributed to a gene. Remember, so does masturbation.



Cock, ass, etc. Ask a lot of women how that feels. 



Chrono Nexus said:


> Fall in love with someone that is gay- love can come at you from any direction.



Why would you do that if you weren't gay?



Chrono Nexus said:


> A sudden change in brain chemistry- for whatever reasons, could be diet, could be the exercise, a person could start liking the same sex.



Ok, cite an instance where this has happened.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> what about the whole theory of selection and evolution? Fitness and all? Ring a bell?



I'm quite fimiliar with it, why? 



Zabuzalives said:


> And your whole, benefitiary of society is very very minimal if nonexistant....



How so?



Zabuzalives said:


> You can look at homosexuality as a "genetic" defect. A minor one, slightly affecting fitness. As in most cases in history (apart from current time), homosexuals still got children.



Clearly because they are unfit they could not breed. Clearly.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 16, 2007)

Indignation said:


> Ya right. This post is weak. This makes no sense.




God, do you fucking ever type more than a one sentence response in a debate? Jesus tap-dancing Christ! I'm sick of your, "No! You're wrong!" responses. Back that shit up with an argument or get the fuck off.

I think you don't type more because you have nothing to type because your argument is baseless hate. You can't sunstantiate why you hate gays it's simple childish "Ewwwww! Gross!" or "God said you're an abomination!" nonsense.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Humans are part of the animal kingdom, no?
> 
> It's precisely because they lack self-awareness they're a perfect case study. Genetics would be the only cause there, not cultural issues.


And there is more to sex than genetics. Culture does play a role. And humans don't live naturally- we have airconditioning, and cars, and television. And loads of other unnatural crap- so human/animal comparisons are out.


> Who the hell are you talking too?


Are you trying to tell me you don't masturbate?


> So they embrace something that they know will mean a shitload of trouble?


That's why they keep it in the closet. But that really causes problems too.


> No, villifying sex and stressing that it's only for procreation is what goes on in these households.


Yeah, for making babies. After you are married. Our points don't oppose each other here.


> Even if we're buying that they're going out experimenting after getting into the world chances are a non-homosexual male is going to find gay sex _extremely_ distasteful and wouldn't continue past a one time occurance.


Yes. And?


> Cock, ass, etc. Ask a lot of women how that feels.


Not alot of women take it in the ass. And for good reason- they lack a colon. 


> Why would you do that if you weren't gay?


I guess it depends on whether you think love can be controlled or stopped.


> Ok, cite an instance where this has happened.


Guy gets drunk. Stoned drunk. He wakes up the next morning sandwiched between his girlfriend and another man. His ass hurts.
Sure, it's a hypothetical, but I am 100% sure it has happened. Drunk people do stupid thingsStupid people do drunk things.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> And there is more to sex than genetics. Culture does play a role. And humans don't live naturally- we have airconditioning, and cars, and television. And loads of other unnatural crap- so human/animal comparisons are out.



Thus, wouldn't it be hypocritical to argue "naturalism" when humans are such unnatural creatures?




> That's why they keep it in the closet. But that really causes problems too.



You honestly think people choose their sexual orientation? Newsflash: if you had to sit and convince yourself to like girls, you're most likely gay. I never had to tell myself to be straight or think about it; I just am.



> Yeah, for making babies. After you are married. Our points don't oppose each other here.



Don't let sterile people have relationships. Don't let couples choose not to have kids.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 16, 2007)

> Ya right. This post is weak. This makes no sense.



because if effectivly disproves your points?


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Thus, wouldn't it be hypocritical to argue "naturalism" when humans are such unnatural creatures?


Yes.


> You honestly think people choose their sexual orientation? Newsflash: if you had to sit and convince yourself to like girls, you're most likely gay. I never had to tell myself to be straight or think about it; I just am.


And? Do you like all girls? No. You probably prefer thin, younger-looking women. This has little to do with our genes, it's society's influence on what is considered beautiful.


> Don't let sterile people have relationships. Don't let couples choose not to have kids.


I think you misunderstand the point of my statement. We were trying to reach an agreement on the conditions of how a man from a fundamentalist Christian household might become gay. I don't have those beliefs.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono, my idea might come as a shock to you, but maybe its some of both?


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> I'm quite fimiliar with it, why?
> 
> How so?
> 
> Clearly because they are unfit they could not breed. Clearly.



If you are really as familiar as you say you are i should not be telling this. Being homosexual hurts your reproductive rate. 
You wont pursue woman, or to a lesser extent. 

How so? well your not explaining so why should I but heres a go. Those extra hands mean shit. It can be done by elderly single heterosecual men/woman, and the mere fact 1 men can sire many children, means a group can afford to lose men. 
Let alone that helping society still means your fitness is worse. 

I can go on and on, but if your not atleast starting to think you might be wrong, that tells me you''ll never admit it anyway, so i wont waste my time. 


sj2k. Bringing down world population does not evolve........How is that selected for? Explain how that would work, in terms of that the genes causing an higher chance to get few offspring would gain a greater part in the total genepool of humanity???


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Chrono, my idea might come as a shock to you, but maybe its some of both?


I never said it wasn't. I said genes were a factor, not a cause. Just like blond supermodels and moviestars popularity are a factor. Just like the stigma of gay sex.


----------



## Kami-Sama (Feb 16, 2007)

T4R0K said:


> Homosexuality seems so minor to me when confronting it to problems that I consider far more serious.



but it is a serious issue, it is just the focus that it is wrong.

Serious issues: Homosexuals are being: beaten up, prejugdiced(SP), killed, shunned, etc.

non-serious issues: should homosexuals marry?, should they adopt?, etc.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> I never said it wasn't. I said genes were a factor, not a cause. Just like blond supermodels and moviestars popularity are a factor. Just like the stigma of gay sex.



I misunderstood you.

Also, I'm not gay in case anyone's wondering. It looks suspicious since I've been in all the gay debate threads.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

> ts not true, but everyone can come up with a reason to justify hate if they try hard enough.


Where your right on this one, I believe that hating an "act" is different from hate for the "people". Society is changing and as far as I'm concerned it has made a gigantic leap when it comes to toleration. But being tolerant doesnt mean accepting what you may not like.





> actually, I would the primary objective is to survive.


And survive one most procreate, or die out.





> A defect is something which hinders NOT the passing on of genes as an individaul, but as a species. Becuase homosexuality would allow humans to create fewer offspring, it means humanity would need fewer resources, so they would not experience a lack of recourceses. So it help the species to survive, and is in fact a positive tool.


To be honest that is a very good thought. but that should mean third world countries would have a higher rate of homosexuality since their resource is very limited. But that doesnt seem to be the case. anywho homosexuality is a variation, accepting the variation is different from accepting the person. I accept the person not the variation, Is dat so bad?


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 16, 2007)

Kami-Sama said:


> but it is a serious issue, it is just the focus that it is wrong.
> 
> Serious issues: Homosexuals are being: beaten up, prejugdiced(SP), killed, shunned, etc.
> 
> non-serious issues: should homosexuals marry?, should they adopt?, etc.



Ah, yes. I missed the serious points. You're right to bring them. I guess the wine from mum's husband's birthday party must mess with my brain...


----------



## Adonis (Feb 16, 2007)

Red said:


> Where your right on this one, I believe that hating an "act" is different from hate for the "people". Society is changing and as far as I'm concerned it has made a gigantic leap when it comes to toleration. But being tolerant doesnt mean accepting what you may not like.



Hating an act that essentially make that person them is as close as youcan get to hating that person. That's like if I said, "I don't hate Native Americans; I simply hate their culture and everything they do."



> And survive one most procreate, or die out.To be honest that is a very good thought. but that should mean third world countries would have a higher rate of homosexuality since their resource is very limited. But that doesnt seem to be the case. anywho homosexuality is a variation, accepting the variation is different from accepting the person. I accept the person not the variation, Is dat so bad?



Yes.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Hating an act that essentially make that person them is as close as youcan get to hating that person. That's like if I said, "I don't hate Native Americans; I simply hate their culture and everything they do."
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


Lets use this analogy.
"I found the kid that murdered my cat, I was shocked to find that he was a considerably okay person"

I know this sounds cliche but see people as they are, not their sexuality their colour or anything.


----------



## Link (Feb 16, 2007)

I think it's ok for Martryn to dislike homosexuality. Even to feel disgusted by it. My sister feels the same way about mushrooms, and somehow I can forgive her.

I've made my views clear, and I'm getting tired of Gay vs. the World debates. I'm outta here.


----------



## Harmonie (Feb 16, 2007)

Homosexuals don't hate people who disagree with them (or at least the sane what's that is.) They hate homophobia.

Disagreeing with homosexuality and hating on the people who are homosexual is another thing.

You don't have to agree with it, you can have your opinion, but to not allow homosexual marriage and bash people for being gay is over the top. It's infringing on civil rights, and it's not different then racism.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 16, 2007)

And bassoonist used some interesting language that made me think.

Disagreeing, not aproving, and hating are very different.

I am not sure if you can hate something but not the person.  But you can disagree with it.  Like a republican, I disagree with a republican, but I don't dislike the person.  But I don't hate republicans.

And martryn will probably not reply NOT becuase he is running away but because he doesnt' like to read alot of posts, lol.  Just thought I would throw that out there (and I mean that too).

Anyways, if its ok to be racist, its ok to be homophobic, its the exact same thing.

In fact I saw another good example.  Holocaust denier laws.  someone said we should ahve them.  If we have those, we should also have laws saying you can't say that you hate homosexuals or homosexuality. Same principale, different scale.


----------



## Shevek (Feb 16, 2007)

Dionysus said:


> Is this all some excuse to continue discrimination against homosexuality?


Seems so. It's not acceptable to be a homophobe so the homophobes goes on like "I'm not a homophobe, _but_...". Quite sad that some people don't dare to say what they think.



Zabuzalives said:


> what about the whole theory of selection and evolution? Fitness and all? Ring a bell?
> 
> And your whole, benefitiary of society is very very minimal if nonexistant....
> 
> You can look at homosexuality as a "genetic" defect. A minor one, slightly affecting fitness. As in most cases in history (apart from current time), homosexuals still got children.


And so spoke the evolution biologist.

Exactly the same un-reasoning that the so called intelligent designers use. 

"Well *I* can't see (after giving it ten seconds of thought) how evolution could explain this, therefore god must have created it."

"Well, _I_ can't see (after giving it ten seconds of thought) how this (gay-)gene could have survived in nature's harsh competition, therefore - let's invent a concept that we call 'genetic defect' and let's say this gene is such a defect".


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

@sj2k then I disagree with them .


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

Chrono Nexus said:


> And there is more to sex than genetics. Culture does play a role. And humans don't live naturally- we have airconditioning, and cars, and television. And loads of other unnatural crap- so human/animal comparisons are out.



Humans aiding themselves with technology =/= explaining a sexual phenomnia that's existed in the natural world and in humans too.



Chrono Nexus said:


> Are you trying to tell me you don't masturbate?



Wherever would you get that idea? I was making the comment towards using toys, that's clearly unnatural. 



Chrono Nexus said:


> That's why they keep it in the closet. But that really causes problems too.



If they were doing it for spite they wouldn't 



Chrono Nexus said:


> Yeah, for making babies. After you are married. Our points don't oppose each other here.



Not entirely, but to call it vilifing sex in it's entirity is kind of excluding certain things.



Chrono Nexus said:


> Yes. And?



They wouldn't be commiting to a homosexual for life, no would they? 



Chrono Nexus said:


> Not alot of women take it in the ass. And for good reason- they lack a colon.



They lack a colon? _WAT_



Chrono Nexus said:


> I guess it depends on whether you think love can be controlled or stopped.



I don't think that, my point is that if they're falling into homosexual love chances are they're _homosexual to begin with_.



Chrono Nexus said:


> Guy gets drunk. Stoned drunk. He wakes up the next morning sandwiched between his girlfriend and another man. His ass hurts.
> Sure, it's a hypothetical, but I am 100% sure it has happened. Drunk people do stupid thingsStupid people do drunk things.



Drunk people do stupid things, but you'd have to be loaded 24/7 to fit this description. I don't think you can really use it as a valid example a result. 

Plus, this would be a purely one time thing, as opposed to a rather permanant sexual orientation.



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> If you are really as familiar as you say you are i should not be telling this. Being homosexual hurts your reproductive rate. You wont pursue woman, or to a lesser extent.



The latent gene still exists in the DNA of many people. If you're fimiliar with genetics at all that means straight people can produce gays anyway, it's not like gays will somehow die out so that limitation is conviently sidestepped.



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> How so? well your not explaining so why should I but heres a go. Those extra hands mean shit. It can be done by elderly single heterosecual men/woman, and the mere fact 1 men can sire many children, means a group can afford to lose men.
> Let alone that helping society still means your fitness is worse.



Women are not as strong as men no? Elder Spinster aunts/uncles are helpful around the house, but they're not exactly useful in many labor intesive positions.  Believe it or not, physical ability decreases with age.



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> I can go on and on, but if your not atleast starting to think you might be wrong, that tells me you''ll never admit it anyway, so i wont waste my time.



Your logic sucks, that's why.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 16, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> They lack a colon? _WAT_



Dude ! You know girls don't "poop", they go "fix their make up" , duh    !!


----------



## Kitty (Feb 16, 2007)

I don't really understand what this thread is a response to - the OP's position is within that of mainstream America and I haven't seen anyone equating disagreeing with homosexuality with hating homosexuals. Quite frankly no one gives a shit if you're not "ok" with homosexuality...simply avoid those people who want to talk about fucking members of the same sex. Simple.

I really hate golf so I'm not going to go run off and make friends with some avid golfer. It's that simple.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 16, 2007)

To be fair to Martryn, I think he's just stating what most heterosexual males think about male homosexuality. He has nothing against gay people personally, he just gets creeped out by it. For example, lets say that we put a normal heterosexual male in front of a screen and show him some porn to watch his reactions. It would probably be something like:

Good looking guy and Good looking girl:  
Good looking girl and Good looking girl:  
Good looking guy and Good looking guy:  

It doesn't have anything to do with logic or rational thought, its just a pure visceral reaction. 

Oh by the way, NOS Guy? I won't say anything about homosexuality being caused by genes since its not definitive yet, but Down's Syndrome is a genetic disorder. Its caused by a trisomy of chromosome 21, which is basically an extra copy of chromosome 21.


----------



## Kitty (Feb 16, 2007)

^ Okay, but doesn't everyone already know that? It doesn't require a thread to state the obvious.


----------



## Gintoki (Feb 16, 2007)

sj2k said:


> In fact I saw another good example.  Holocaust denier laws.  someone said we should ahve them.  If we have those, we should also have laws saying you can't say that you hate homosexuals or homosexuality. Same principale, different scale.



This makes complete sense. They may be different a different scale, but in the end, they are the same principal.


----------



## Greed990 (Feb 16, 2007)

I hate it when homophobes use the bible as "evidence" being gay is wrong.
But! I dont believe in that mumbojumbo for you see I am of the atheist religion, where we worship Charles Darwin, devour babies on our holy day of September 11th, and have Harry Potter novels for holy documents.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Feb 16, 2007)

What business is it for you to judge? Why do you need to make a thread, to say specifically that you think the act of being homosexual is "disgusting"? Why not just keep it to your self and let people have sex with they want without you assholes judging them? 

You fuckers disgust me.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> What business is it for you to judge? Why do you need to make a thread, to say specifically that you think the act of being homosexual is "disgusting"? Why not just keep it to your self and let people have sex with they want without you assholes judging them?
> 
> You fuckers disgust me.


I cant believe you missed the entire meaning of this thread. From what I gather he's trying to say it's okay not to agree with homosexuality , one doesn't have to be worried about being shot down as a homophob or a conservative extremist when he says the idea of two men having sex is somewhat appalling or disgusting for him and frankly he has that right to have his opinion.





> You fuckers disgust me


that is uncalled for.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Feb 16, 2007)

But why does have to say "being gay is disgusting"?


----------



## Uncle Lunchwagon (Feb 16, 2007)

I've never heard a homosexual talk about his or her sexual endeavors.


----------



## Red (Feb 16, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> But why does have to say "being gay is disgusting"?


the same reason you said we fuckers are disgusting. It's his opinion, sometimes other peoples opinion can be unsettling but they have a right to say as long as it doesnt impose on certain civil rights ^_^


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 16, 2007)

hcheng02 said:


> Oh by the way, NOS Guy? I won't say anything about homosexuality being caused by genes since its not definitive yet, but Down's Syndrome is a genetic disorder. Its caused by a trisomy of chromosome 21, which is basically an extra copy of chromosome 21.



Correct! The faulty copying mechanism of the 21st chromosome that leads to the disorder would be the result of a genetic defect


----------



## Aecen (Feb 16, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> But why does have to say "being gay is disgusting"?



Sticking a dick in a mans ass is pretty disgusting.

I have no problem with gays, just aslong as they dont shove it in my face just to get attention.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Feb 16, 2007)

Uncle Lunchwagon said:


> I've never heard a homosexual talk about his or her sexual endeavors.



Same here. :\


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 17, 2007)

Shevek,
"Well, I can't see (after giving it ten seconds of thought) how this (gay-)gene could have survived in nature's harsh competition, therefore - let's invent a concept that we call 'genetic defect' and let's say this gene is such a defect".

This just fails, not only have i given it more thought then 10 seconds, this is NOT what i have been saying all along. Dont invent stuff. I said if its a gene, its a minor genetic defect as homosexuals have been getting children throughout history, so the selection against it is very weak. 



That NOS Guy said:


> The latent gene still exists in the DNA of many people. If you're fimiliar with genetics at all that means straight people can produce gays anyway, it's not like gays will somehow die out so that limitation is conviently sidestepped.
> 
> Women are not as strong as men no? Elder Spinster aunts/uncles are helpful around the house, but they're not exactly useful in many labor intesive positions.  Believe it or not, physical ability decreases with age.
> 
> Your logic sucks, that's why.



There probably is not just 1 gay-gene but several effecting one another and some nurture to the mix. Or perhaps its not genetic at all, but a defect during the early morphology/development. When the brain is formed etc. 

But lets assume there is a gay gene, I never said it would be selected out of a population, but once it does appear in fenotype through two latent copies it will have a negative impact on fitness. Hence you COULD call it a defect. 
You can have many latent (recessive) heraditary diseases and mutations that wont become apparent unless both parents transfer the faulty copy to the child. (a reason why i*c*st is a bad idea), so whats your point? Still makes it diseases and defective genes...

My logic sucks? your logic is non-existant. With your having gays not tied to children available for work, somehow helps the society?? 
You were left with hard labor...now why cant single men do that? why cant fathers do that?  You have to be gay to do certain work? 
What does the fact that a group has GAY men give it greater success???

Let alone that on an individual level, being gay still is bad for your fitness. 
It would only ceased to be selected against when the group greatly benefits and the similar genes you pass on by having your group (having more similar genes with you then an other group has)  outcompete the others as a result. Evolution on group level. 

So there, please explain why Gays would greatly benefit a society or group in a way heterosexual men wouldnt.....


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 17, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> There probably is not just 1 gay-gene but several effecting one another and some nurture to the mix. Or perhaps its not genetic at all, but a defect during the early morphology/development. When the brain is formed etc.



Actually one of the strong running theories competing with genetics in the biological camp is that antibodies formed during pregnancies of males result in higher chance of homosexual preference the further down the line you go.



Zabuzalives said:


> But lets assume there is a gay gene, I never said it would be selected out of a population, but once it does appear in fenotype through two latent copies it will have a negative impact on fitness. Hence you COULD call it a defect.
> You can have many latent (recessive) heraditary diseases and mutations that wont become apparent unless both parents transfer the faulty copy to the child. (a reason why i*c*st is a bad idea), so whats your point? Still makes it diseases and defective genes...



You're still bent on thinking that a variation which does not affect survival of an individual is somehow a defect. Last I checked being gay doesn't put you at risk for heart diesease. 



Zabuzalives said:


> My logic sucks? your logic is non-existant. With your having gays not tied to children available for work, somehow helps the society??
> You were left with hard labor...now why cant single men do that? why cant fathers do that?  You have to be gay to do certain work?
> What does the fact that a group has GAY men give it greater success???



No you bumbaling retard, I pointed out that having a single person who will remain unattached with his own children for _his entire lifetime_ is ultimately advantageous since shockingly enough, the supply of single males not involved in breeding tends to be in a state of flux. 

The fact that a group has gay men means it has something that's capable of much more physically intensive labor or free from family commitments to work in the community. Quintessentially a spinster aunt on steriods. Nevermind physically intensive labor isnt the only thing that gays could do. There could be other tasks such as watching over children (if you've ever worked with kids you'd know that a pair of hands that's freely available is a godsend) assigned to this as well. I'm relatively stupified that someone can't see the advantage in natural floating reserve for communal labor.



Zabuzalives said:


> Let alone that on an individual level, being gay still is bad for your fitness.



Life does not somehow end in failure with a lack of passing on of genes. If you want to pursue that angle tell it to a barren woman. 



Zabuzalives said:


> It would only ceased to be selected against when the group greatly benefits and the similar genes you pass on by having your group (having more similar genes with you then an other group has)  outcompete the others as a result. Evolution on group level.



On that note, could that be why gays have popped up throughout human history? After all, unbenefical mutations rarely last long in the wild.



Zabuzalives said:


> So there, please explain why Gays would greatly benefit a society or group in a way heterosexual men wouldnt.....



I never said they were unique in their tasks, simply that they serve as an unattached extra pair of hands for the duration of life. You're clearly 14 if you can't see the benefit there.


----------



## Botzu (Feb 17, 2007)

i lol'd at the first line of this thread xD gg its so hard to take somebody serios when they say butt sex


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 17, 2007)

Kitty said:


> I don't really understand what this thread is a response to - the OP's position is within that of mainstream America and I haven't seen anyone equating disagreeing with homosexuality with hating homosexuals. Quite frankly no one gives a shit if you're not "ok" with homosexuality...simply avoid those people who want to talk about fucking members of the same sex. Simple.
> 
> I really hate golf so I'm not going to go run off and make friends with some avid golfer. It's that simple.




Whoa now, I caddied all through junior-high and now I can't stand golf, but a few of my friends love it.
I would never dream of cutting ties with them just because they love it.  I expect them to understand that I'm bored out of my mind by it and not to overpower our conversation and interactions with it.

@ That NOS Guy

-First, with the state that our planet is in, someone sex life/preference should not have to benefit society.  It only needs to not be a hindrance or infringe on the right of others(rape, beastiality, pedophilia, etc.).
-Secondly, with that said, if you think that a Homosexual relationship somehow benefit's society; perhaps, you're clearly 14....


----------



## sj2k (Feb 17, 2007)

> I cant believe you missed the entire meaning of this thread. From what I gather he's trying to say it's okay not to agree with homosexuality , one doesn't have to be worried about being shot down as a homophob or a conservative extremist when he says the idea of two men having sex is somewhat appalling or disgusting for him and frankly he has that right to have his opinion.



that is your opinion.  I am not sure if martryn is that rational 

Zabuza, I could argue, quite effectivly actually, that growing up in a christian household is a defect.  Point is you can make the argument that nayhting is a defect.  I will not argue christianity is a defect becuase I am able to respect christians.  Can you say the same about homosexuals?



> Secondly, with that said, if you think that a Homosexual relationship somehow benefit's society; perhaps, you're clearly 14....



well, if NOS is 14, you must be about 5.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 17, 2007)

sj2k said:


> that is your opinion.  I am not sure if martryn is that rational
> 
> Zabuza, I could argue, quite effectivly actually, that growing up in a christian household is a defect.  Point is you can make the argument that nayhting is a defect.  I will not argue christianity is a defect becuase I am able to respect christians.  Can you say the same about homosexuals?
> 
> ...



Care to explain your childish insult?


----------



## cygnus (Feb 17, 2007)

I hate to say it but I agree with martryn for once....


----------



## sj2k (Feb 17, 2007)

> Care to explain your childish insult?



well, you used a childish insult by calling NOS 14, so I responded with a childish insult calling you 5 

Or do you mean the martryn thing?  I don't find him rational, not on this particualr topic, just in general.

If you do mean the five thing, it is mostly because you dismissed his theory without talking about it whatosever, then ended it with an idiotic insult.  Instead of explaining that, I insulted you back in teh same exact manner.


----------



## GiantShinobi (Feb 17, 2007)

I never will accept any gays. Just hurt them if I see them anywhere.


----------



## Ichiban-nin (Feb 17, 2007)

Discretion is one of mankind's ultimate double-edge swords.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 17, 2007)

The_X_box_360 said:


> -First, with the state that our planet is in, someone sex life/preference should not have to benefit society.  It only needs to not be a hindrance or infringe on the right of others(rape, beastiality, pedophilia, etc.).



Which I'm not trying to argue, I'm talking from a strict historical perspective and why gays are not an effective net drain on society. Sure, if we want to talk currently such benefits to small scale situations aren't entirely in play anymore, but then again it's not like gays hinder anything so they meet your criteria for acceptable.

In fact, they perserve the environment by not contributing to overpopulation 



The_X_box_360 said:


> -Secondly, with that said, if you think that a Homosexual relationship somehow benefit's society; perhaps, you're clearly 14....



If you're trying for "NO U!" you're failing miserably. I've pointed out that _homosexuals_ have been _historically_ helpful to society, and thus a benefit rather then a drawback.


----------



## soulnova (Feb 17, 2007)

They can be as gay as they want, but in private! I dont want to hear my friends talking about cocks in their vaginas/anus or to see handjobs in public! C'mon, get a room, PLEASE. (Hete or Homo, I dont care, dont scream about your sexual life)


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 17, 2007)

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that all homosexuals do is talk about gay sex and have gay sex - in front of you. 

People... grow up.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 17, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Actually one of the strong running theories competing with genetics in the biological camp is that antibodies formed during pregnancies of males result in higher chance of homosexual preference the further down the line you go.



Yeah i know. I dont really believe theres a single gay-gene myself. As that would mean it would be heraditary. Which its not. 



That NOS Guy said:


> You're still bent on thinking that a variation which does not affect survival of an individual is somehow a defect. Last I checked being gay doesn't put you at risk for heart diesease.



Survival alone doesnt equal fitness. Number of reproducing children do. And as we were strictly talking about genetics here, I said that in that way it COULD be seen as a genetic defect. (a minor one as i felt it was a bit hasrhly put)
But looking up definitions, defect is to big a word so i stand corrected on that. Deficiency or abnormality would be better put. 



That NOS Guy said:


> No you bumbaling retard, I pointed out that having a single person who will remain unattached with his own children for _his entire lifetime_ is ultimately advantageous since shockingly enough, the supply of single males not involved in breeding tends to be in a state of flux.
> The fact that a group has gay men means it has something that's capable of much more physically intensive labor or free from family commitments to work in the community. Quintessentially a spinster aunt on steriods. Nevermind physically intensive labor isnt the only thing that gays could do. There could be other tasks such as watching over children (if you've ever worked with kids you'd know that a pair of hands that's freely available is a godsend) assigned to this as well. I'm relatively stupified that someone can't see the advantage in natural floating reserve for communal labor..



And im relatively stupified, that since im constantly talking about a genetic, evolutionary view,  you fail to see how this "help" is very very minimal. 
As if, single males (especially when in the past a lot of females died giving birth) impotent males and let alone just males with a family (despite "family commitments" they still work in mines and act as soldiers...) can not do that work? Watching children? spinsters and grandparents anyone? 

Really a group has more then enough natural floating reserve, that having gays holds no or little benefit then their heterosexual counterparts. 



That NOS Guy said:


> Life does not somehow end in failure with a lack of passing on of genes. If you want to pursue that angle tell it to a barren woman. .



From a pure genetic/passing on genes view, it is. And thats what i''[ve been discussing.



That NOS Guy said:


> On that note, could that be why gays have popped up throughout human history? After all, unbenefical mutations rarely last long in the wild..



No. group evolution is incredibly difficult. There would need to be serious advantages. Which there arent. 
I have explained how homosexuality would not be heavily selected against seeing as throughout history they still got children, or that it maybe isnt even genetic. 



That NOS Guy said:


> I never said they were unique in their tasks, simply that they serve as an unattached extra pair of hands for the duration of life. You're clearly 14 if you can't see the benefit there.



And your clearly 14 if you think that benefit greatly benefits group competition. That that benefits passing on genes...

You do realize that your insults and tantrems already make you seem 14?


sj2k, your right it is possible to argument things are a defect. 
Apart that assuming homosexuality is genetic, in my case there would be some grounds to call it a minor defect (or deficiancy/abnormality) considering it negatively affects fitness. 
Thats why i never said it IS a defect, but that you COULD argue that its one.

And please do argue why Christianity is a defect. Remember we are solely talking genetics and selection here. Lets say the likeliness of becoming conservative christian/muslim is genetic. How is this a deficiency? A defect? Considering they are getting more children.

See? you throw in respect and disrespect in here, but that doesnt even apply for me. All im discussing is looking at genetics and evolution, could homosexuality be called a defect? In the hypothetical case homosexuality is caused by the genes. 

Concluding, when purely thinking about passing on as many genes as possible, homosexuality would be unwanted as it negatively affects this. 

Thats my point, im not making judgments or anti-gay statements at all. But everytime in such a theoretical discussion people will get overly defensive about this issue.


----------



## killinspree42099 (Feb 17, 2007)

by saying that i think homosexuals having sex is disgusting but on the other hand being ok with people being a homosexual. dosent that make me a hypocrite? because to be fully ok with homosexuals, you are ok with the fact of them having sex (meaning your not disgusted by it).


----------



## sj2k (Feb 17, 2007)

The christianity thing was more to show you that ANYTHING can be seen as a defect if you have that mindset.  But goin gback to the orignial point,



> Concluding, when purely thinking about passing on as many genes as possible, homosexuality would be unwanted as it negatively affects this.



Again, this is not what survival is about.  survival is about ensuring the survival of teh SPECIES not the individual.

And on a more broad range, why does this mean it is ok to hate homosexuals?  Even if it is a defect, which again I disagree with, that doesn't mean they shouldn't marry, or that you shouldn't talk to them, or you shouldn't accept them.  IN FACT if we consider it a defect and not a choice, which is what most people against homosexuality argue, then it is not their chioce, so there would be no reason to hold it against them.  In fact, it would be worse to hold it against them.

And since homosexuality, if we look at it as a defect, is not contagiouse, and only affects the ability to pass on their genes, but not their intelligence or anything like that, it would be horrible to hold something against someone that they cannot control.

So while the is homsexuality a defect is I guess worth talking about, it has nothing to do with this conversation, since if is, it kind of proves that its not ok to hate them.  And if it is not a defect, again its not ok to hate them.  So really, its just no ok to hate them.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 18, 2007)

sj2k said:


> The christianity thing was more to show you that ANYTHING can be seen as a defect if you have that mindset.  But goin gback to the orignial point,
> 
> Again, this is not what survival is about.  survival is about ensuring the survival of teh SPECIES not the individual.



Thats something different, homosexuality has little effect on that. 



sj2k said:


> And on a more broad range, why does this mean it is ok to hate homosexuals?  Even if it is a defect, which again I disagree with, that doesn't mean they shouldn't marry, or that you shouldn't talk to them, or you shouldn't accept them.  IN FACT if we consider it a defect and not a choice, which is what most people against homosexuality argue, then it is not their chioce, so there would be no reason to hold it against them.  In fact, it would be worse to hold it against them.
> 
> And since homosexuality, if we look at it as a defect, is not contagiouse, and only affects the ability to pass on their genes, but not their intelligence or anything like that, it would be horrible to hold something against someone that they cannot control.
> .



where do i say this? I agree with you.



sj2k said:


> So while the is homsexuality a defect is I guess worth talking about, it has nothing to do with this conversation, since if is, it kind of proves that its not ok to hate them.  And if it is not a defect, again its not ok to hate them.  So really, its just no ok to hate them



But it has some worth talking about it, because there are very many people who want to shy away from such a debate. Or pretend you may never say such a thing or your clearly bigoted. 

Only because people get overly defensive about the issue. This also happens when looking at (general) differences between the races. Or differences between the sexes.


----------



## Yakuza (Feb 18, 2007)

I'll be quite honest...
I am against homosexuality, not the person itself...
If you want to follow that path, thats your problem, im ok with it. 

I just think is disgusting.

I have 2 gay friends, I get along with them, but I don't spend time with them because I think that homosexuality is depressing, but hey, its their option of living, and I have to respect that.


----------



## shizuru (Feb 18, 2007)

okay okay some guys complain about gays ( men together now) but they dont complain about lesbiens they worship them.... whats the difference? nothing thats what.


----------



## Bunnysmex (Feb 18, 2007)

My family are all Racist and homophobes but I am not

I see nothing wrong with a persons sexuality, if they are gay.....so what.....it's not thay has changed there personality or anything, they are still teh same person, and it bugs me to god knows ends about all the predjudice and discrimination that happens, all because  someone has decided to have a different orientation than others, it is just childish, like some has a better toy than you and you want theres, jeez!! 

huggles


----------



## That NOS Guy (Feb 18, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Yeah i know. I dont really believe theres a single gay-gene myself. As that would mean it would be heraditary. Which its not.



Both arguments are convincing relatively speaking. The gay "gene" does seem like a bit of a holy grail, but to deny that it's biological is madness.



Zabuzalives said:


> Survival alone doesnt equal fitness. Number of reproducing children do. And as we were strictly talking about genetics here, I said that in that way it COULD be seen as a genetic defect. (a minor one as i felt it was a bit hasrhly put)
> But looking up definitions, defect is to big a word so i stand corrected on that. Deficiency or abnormality would be better put.



While I concede that survival alone doesn't equal fitness, but it's rather the entire point of life as far as I'm concerned.

Put it at "abnormality" or "variance" and we've got a deal. 



Zabuzalives said:


> And im relatively stupified, that since im constantly talking about a genetic, evolutionary view,  you fail to see how this "help" is very very minimal.
> As if, single males (especially when in the past a lot of females died giving birth) impotent males and let alone just males with a family (despite "family commitments" they still work in mines and act as soldiers...) can not do that work? Watching children? spinsters and grandparents anyone?



Which as I've underlined above single males are in a state of flux (what if you've just had a throw down with the tribe next door and lost quite a few young single males?). Spinsters and grandparents are not nearly as physically capable and likely to be tied down helping their own familes. Yeah, where does have a pair of unatttached hands not come into help here? 



Zabuzalives said:


> Really a group has more then enough natural floating reserve, that having gays holds no or little benefit then their heterosexual counterparts.



In the times when we were small hunting bands? I don't think so. 



Zabuzalives said:


> From a pure genetic/passing on genes view, it is. And thats what i''[ve been discussing.



Which is inconsequential since humankind has never been under threat of extinction due to lack of breeding pairs. This condition is purely inconsequential to survival at large and affects the individuals ability to function none whatsoever. 

But yeah, tell that to the next barren woman you come across. That should be entertaining, but make sure to tell them it's strictly from a "genetic POV".

Discussing things from purely genetic angles misses the point. There are also quite a large number of cultural and even moral views to be factored in.



Zabuzalives said:


> No. group evolution is incredibly difficult. There would need to be serious advantages. Which there arent.
> I have explained how homosexuality would not be heavily selected against seeing as throughout history they still got children, or that it maybe isnt even genetic.



If gay people have had enough children throughout history to remain a viable portion of society then their fitness is not as bad as you portray it. If it's not genetic, you still haven't explained why it pops up in some extremely prohibitive cultural circumstance and why it crops up in animal populations.



Zabuzalives said:


> And your clearly 14 if you think that benefit greatly benefits group competition. That that benefits passing on genes...
> 
> You do realize that your insults and tantrems already make you seem 14?



How does helping a community at large prosper not benefit passing on of genes/survival of the species in the long term? That's what I've been asking this entire time and lo and behold, you can't fucking answer it or have been swinging around trying by failing.

Please, this thread hasn't even been pic spammed yet.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 18, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Both arguments are convincing relatively speaking. The gay "gene" does seem like a bit of a holy grail, but to deny that it's biological is madness.
> 
> If gay people have had enough children throughout history to remain a viable portion of society then their fitness is not as bad as you portray it. If it's not genetic, you still haven't explained why it pops up in some extremely prohibitive cultural circumstance and why it crops up in animal populations..



three wrong assumptions
1. I never stated it was that bad for ones fitness. Easy to track back as a I have been telling from the start it would be a minor defect and how it is not heavily selected against. Even explaining myself.
2. I said i dont see its as simple as a SINGLE gene. If its genetic and not something morpholigic, then there could also be are seral genes at play which together make up ones sexuality. 
Now there have never been that good research but i wasnt under the impression that Gay "runs in the family". Or was that heraditary. 
Purely my own view of it. Its has not been researched much, and all we have to go with now are theories, but i am perfectly aware of this. 

3. I never denied its biological.   




That NOS Guy said:


> While I concede that survival alone doesn't equal fitness, but it's rather the entire point of life as far as I'm concerned..



Not from an evolutionary point of view. Where fitness would be all that mattered. Survival makes up 1 of its ingredients. 



That NOS Guy said:


> Put it at "abnormality" or "variance" and we've got a deal. .



Great i'll go with abnormality (or maybe deficiency? )  



That NOS Guy said:


> Which as I've underlined above single males are in a state of flux (what if you've just had a throw down with the tribe next door and lost quite a few young single males?). Spinsters and grandparents are not nearly as physically capable and likely to be tied down helping their own familes. Yeah, where does have a pair of unatttached hands not come into help here? .



Were talking straight past eachother on this. Why are these hands that superior then attached heterosexual ones? Why do they have to be unnatached, as being attached to a family havent stopped males working in mines and going to war....
And back in the day many females died during birth. Besides a group can lose some of its males, as 1 male can sire many children.




That NOS Guy said:


> In the times when we were small hunting bands? I don't think so.
> 
> Which is inconsequential since humankind has never been under threat of extinction due to lack of breeding pairs. This condition is purely inconsequential to survival at large and affects the individuals ability to function none whatsoever. .



The condition mildly affects ones fitness.

In times when we were small hunting bands breeding was important. And its not extinction its OUTCOMPETING other groups..... 
And evolution of individual traits is not always to the best interest of the whole species. 
Example: Male lions kill cubs not their own, so the females will be able to give birth to their own cubs sooner. Resulting in fewer cubs making it to adulthood. 






That NOS Guy said:


> But yeah, tell that to the next barren woman you come across. That should be entertaining, but make sure to tell them it's strictly from a "genetic POV".



I already admitted defect was a bit of a strong word to use. But i dont see why this duscussion is hurtfull. 
And i wont have to tell a woman that, she is perfectly aware that her fitness is greatly reduced. No need to rub it in. 




That NOS Guy said:


> Discussing things from purely genetic angles misses the point. There are also quite a large number of cultural and even moral views to be factored in..



Yep i agree (never said it wasnt). Problem is even when just talking about genetics, people will get all defensive and deny whats laying right in front of them. So i have yet to get past talking about genetics and onto a broader sense of cutural and moral implications. 



That NOS Guy said:


> How does helping a community at large prosper not benefit passing on of genes/survival of the species in the long term? That's what I've been asking this entire time and lo and behold, you can't fucking answer it or have been swinging around trying by failing..



I could say the same of you not answering my questions. Were talking past eachother after all. 

Gays help the group and help family with passing on their genes yeah. 
This is somewhat an evolved mechanism in every human. So that means heterosexuals do this as well....Gays are not more useful for group survival then heterosexuals. Or better put so very minimal it does not mean that extra% similar genes passed on balances out not having children of their own. 
When they do have children (probably lesser kids or in fewer cases then heterosexuals) then your whole "unattached" theory is out the window. 

Also genes can be selfish, in that not all behaviour evolved is best for the enitre species. 

Listen i know im not that great in explaining myself from earlier threads, but please relax and dont start assuming things like im "not fucking answering" you or "swinging around by failing" (whatever that means)


----------



## sj2k (Feb 18, 2007)

You know, if you hate homosexuals, if you hate black people, if you hate jews, if you hate women, I disagree with you.  But it is your right to think that.


----------



## MartialHorror (Feb 18, 2007)

sj2k said:


> that is your opinion.  I am not sure if martryn is that rational
> 
> Zabuza, I could argue, quite effectivly actually, that growing up in a christian household is a defect.  Point is you can make the argument that nayhting is a defect.  I will not argue christianity is a defect becuase I am able to respect christians.  Can you say the same about homosexuals?
> 
> ...



Same with being in a Jewish household.........

Personally, I dont have a problem with it anymore than I do with heterosexuality. Imo, sex prior to marriage is a sin and extra-marital sex is the same way, if not worse. I'll hold homosexuals to those same standards.

Ironically, its the conservative Christians making it worse for them............

Gah, I'm in the cafe! Oh well, at least not in the philosophy section.....


----------



## Shevek (Feb 18, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Survival alone doesnt equal fitness. Number of reproducing children do. And as we were strictly talking about genetics here, I said that in that way it COULD be seen as a genetic defect. (a minor one as i felt it was a bit hasrhly put)
> But looking up definitions, defect is to big a word so i stand corrected on that. Deficiency or abnormality would be better put.


Natural selection works primarily on _genes_, not individuals. And the genes that make it more probable for an individual to be gay may be good at spreading.


----------



## Yakuza (Feb 18, 2007)

GothPunkChick said:


> My family are all Racist and homophobes



okidoki..... beat my... My Great grandad/ mgrandama were nazis
my unles family were members of KKK
and i have a black cousin, which ive seen my grandad calling him N***er and insulting him in his own house....
my family is distorced...


----------



## sj2k (Feb 18, 2007)

> Gah, I'm in the cafe! Oh well, at least not in the philosophy section.....



I knew you couldn't stay away!

And I only said christian so that it affected zabuza more directly, any religouse household does apply.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 18, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> Which I'm not trying to argue, I'm talking from a strict historical perspective and why gays are not an effective net drain on society. Sure, if we want to talk currently such benefits to small scale situations aren't entirely in play anymore, but then again it's not like gays hinder anything so they meet your criteria for acceptable.
> 
> In fact, they perserve the environment by not contributing to overpopulation
> 
> ...



Now, you are speaking much more intelligently then b4...

-I was not going for the "NO U!"... It's a childish thing to do.. 
Remember, you told some1 that they must be 14, because they didn't believe that homosexuality was a benefit to society...
That^ statement seems to imply that all adults feel that homosexuality is needed for the greater future of mankind...
-After stating that I felt that sexual preferences do not need to benefit society, just to not be a hindrance to it(which I feel gayness in no hindrance);
I then "AND ONLY THEN" said that, "If you truly believe that homosexuality is a benefit to human society, perhaps you are the one that must be 14"


1. Not meaning that you're fourteen only because you believe that.
2. Not meaning that you're fourteen only because you called some1 else fourteen.
3. You must be 14, because, you called some1 else that... only because they DO NOT believe that Homosexuality is an element that is needed by humanity for the greater future of Mankind, like you yourself believe.... 
And remember that I said "IF" that's what you truly believe.... then and only then does the insult apply to you.
4. You have now reworded your statements in a much more clear and intelligent way that makes it much more apparent that you might be choosing the wrong word when you say "benefit"....  Perhaps, you mean to say the same thing I said in my first Post(which you obviously, didn't read carefully).  *HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A HINDRANCE TO HUMAN SOCIETY*

-The fact that something is not a hindrance, does not make it a benefit...
-Human society would get along just fine without Homosexuality...
-And had their never been any Homosexuality throughout history, humanity and it's civilization would have still survived...
-Also, contrary to your beliefs, homosexuals do reproduce...
To say otherwise, is indeed, as childish as an unenlightened 14yr old.


_Also, you misspelled preserve..._


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 18, 2007)

well i dont like anal sex, but i do respect homos...


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 19, 2007)

I think it is childish to not like gays. But there are people who were raised this way and we should not disrespect them. The thing is if the person dose not like them he should not hate them and curse at them for no reason. I have no homoexual male friends but lot of female one. I feel bad how some people treat her.


----------



## Master Scorpion (Feb 19, 2007)

I am a devoted christian, and I don't against gay.. because thats the way it is when the world becomes crazy.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 19, 2007)

Well what if the majority of the world was gay and you weren't and the did that to you...
I'm sure if you think about it you will see that there i nothing wrong with gays.


----------



## Shiron (Feb 19, 2007)

Sound Village Chuunin said:


> Well what if the majority of the world was gay and you weren't and the did that to you...
> I'm sure if you think about it you will see that there i nothing wrong with gays.


And what if the majority of people in the world were infertile? Or old and weak? Or were deathly ill? Or were in a comas? Or were babies? Sorry, that really is irrelevant. The thing is, the majority of the world isn't made up of homosexuals and most likely never will be. Using such an urealilistic scenario like that doesn't prove anything.

And did what to me? Sorry, but if it's what I think it is... No, just no. Gays are not walking robots that only care about sex. There's a lot more to them than that. They're just like everyone else and would most likely never even bring the issue up unless you were to ask them about it.


----------



## ScoutZ (Feb 19, 2007)

i dont like homosexuals deal with it... im allowed to i have freedom of thought and its creepy.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 19, 2007)

ScoutZ said:


> i dont like homosexuals deal with it... im allowed to i have freedom of thought and its creepy.



It's okay, that's quite alright.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 19, 2007)

Shevek said:


> Natural selection works primarily on _genes_, not individuals. And the genes that make it more probable for an individual to be gay may be good at spreading.



yeah and that spreading goes through offspring, (or benefiting family/close group reproduction). and suprise suprise, being gay does negatively affect that. (direct reproduction, there would be no difference between a heterosexual in helping family/group) 

If they are good at spreading then there is an net advantage to fitness. Which theres not. 

I can go on and on why such a deficiency/abnormality would not be selected out of an population. That it hardly matters under our cultural and moral influences. That real selection happens little with our ability to change our environment to suit our needs and our healthcare and technology. 

But not only have i already partly did this, it would also be wasted breath, considering people still seem to refuse to believe being homosexual is on average, negatively affecting ones fitness. 

Im not even making judgments on this. Why am i going on and on about this then? Well cause it makes much sense to me, and i would like to say such a thing without getting looked at funny from people who are overly sensitive to the issue.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 19, 2007)

_Looks at the thread...  Shakes his head...
Decides to say:_


Who the hell ever said that Homosexuals don't reproduce?!?


----------



## troublesum-chan (Feb 19, 2007)

well technically its impossible

naturally it is impossible

with the aid of god powered doctors

its within the realm of reason


----------



## silver_dagger (Feb 19, 2007)

i have nothing against homosexuals..they live ordinary lives as well..so i guess it's just a matter of respect..


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 19, 2007)

Nearly all the gays that I know have children, or their spouse have children...


----------



## Yakuza (Feb 19, 2007)

explain to me how the fuck a gay guy is suppose to reproduce????  bum raping his partner??? doubt!!!!
adoption!!!!


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 19, 2007)

Dheano said:


> explain to me how the fuck a gay guy is suppose to reproduce????  bum raping his partner??? doubt!!!!
> adoption!!!!



Yeah, because being gay automatically makes you sterile.  

Please think before you post.


----------



## lecya (Feb 19, 2007)

I don't hate homosexuality at all. What two people do behind closed doors is between them, NOT them and the public. 

But I do hate *the thought *of two men having butt sex... that just nasty to me, I'm so sorry to say. I think two women together look so much hotter and I'm a straight female... go figure. But that's how many people think. Nothing against gay guys or anything... 
They can do whatever they want, I don't care and I don't see why others would care either. How is them having sex and getting married affecting you? It's not. Society seriously needs to get over it.


----------



## Shevek (Feb 19, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> yeah and that spreading goes through offspring, (or benefiting family/close group reproduction). and suprise suprise, being gay does negatively affect that. (direct reproduction, there would be no difference between a heterosexual in helping family/group)
> 
> If they are good at spreading then there is an net advantage to fitness. Which theres not.
> 
> I can go on and on why such a deficiency/abnormality would not be selected out of an population. That it hardly matters under our cultural and moral influences. That real selection happens little with our ability to change our environment to suit our needs and our healthcare and technology.


How do you know a gay gene can't benefit "family/close group reproduction"? I suppose you have some evidence.

And if the gay genes are bad at spreading, how could they have survived?


----------



## Cormac (Feb 19, 2007)

I don't care about Gay's really, they made their choice in life. But. About the part about not likeing gays simply because they are not natural means you like killing? after all it is perfectly natural for animals to kill each other (Humans are a type of animal) And gay sex really turns me off. Or any gay sexaul touching for example, male kissing, male touching on hips or crotch.


----------



## Pretty_Vacant (Feb 19, 2007)

Gays are okay, as long as they don't press straight people with their gay-ness  
As with any sexuality, really...
PS that wasn't meant in a nasty way


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 19, 2007)

lecya said:


> I think two women together look so much hotter and I'm a straight female... go figure. But that's how many people think. Nothing against gay guys or anything...



Well, I've heared that argument from several straight girls too. I think it's the esthetics :

- look at us men : we're bulky, edgy, when we have muscles we're "squary"
- and women : they're "round", softer, less edges, kinda more "fluid" when you let your eyes run along their curves, sweet... (*starts to drool at the image*)

HUMHRUM ! Sorry... My point is that curves, roundness makes them "more beautiful" (because beauty is rather subjective) and many people associate curves with women and edges with men. Then it's up to people to define what they like. 

Somehow, people think curves are more beautiful... Thus women together is a pretty sight... 

*drools...*


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 19, 2007)

lecya said:


> I think two women together look so much hotter and I'm a straight female... go figure. But that's how many people think. Nothing against gay guys or anything...



Well, I've heared that argument from several straight girls too. I think it's the esthetics :

- look at us men : we're bulky, edgy, when we have muscles we're "squary"
- and women : they're "round", softer, less edges, kinda more "fluid" when you let your eyes run along their curves, sweet... (*starts to drool at the image*)

HUMHRUM ! Sorry... My point is that curves, roundness makes them "more beautiful" (because beauty is rather subjective) and many people associate curves with women and edges with men. Then it's up to people to define what they like. 

Somehow, people think curves are more beautiful... Thus women together is a pretty sight... 

*drools...*


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 19, 2007)

Shevek said:


> How do you know a gay gene can't benefit "family/close group reproduction"? I suppose you have some evidence.
> 
> And if the gay genes are bad at spreading, how could they have survived?



Ehm this talk is already pretty hypothetical, and im not looking up evidence from a purely hypothetical gene where this hasnt been reasearched yet...

But its just pretty logical: 

1. If gays do not have children, they have more spare time to help their family yeah. But this does not make uo for the fact they are not having children. Children carrying 50% of their genes, while your nephew has 25%of your genes and it diminishes from there. 

2. If they do have children (in lesser cases, and fewer numbers, as sex with a woman is not something they enjoy as much, nor will go to the same lengths to seek sex with a woman) how does being gay benefit the group in ways a heterosexual cant? Not really huh? Or can you think of something? 

And its not SPREADING. If its been spreading since the stone age, a great deal more homosexuals would be around....
A better question would be why has it not been selected out of the gene pool a long time ago. Which i already answered in multiple ways, multiple times. (read my older post) 

Namely it is NOT heavily selected against. Also it could be recessive, or just an often occuring fault during early morphology. And cultural and technological issues play a role here.


----------



## ScoutZ (Feb 19, 2007)

like i said before EW, and why keep this topic up?


----------



## funky gibbon (Feb 19, 2007)

What does open-mindedness got to do with homosexuality, it's not normal no matter how you look at it. one thing though I seem to attract queers a lot!!! *shivers*


----------



## dragon695 (Feb 19, 2007)

Megaharrison said:


> Plus the gays piss off the Islamists. I love them as a result.



Unfortunately, we also piss off the Charedi as can be seen by the rather ridiculous riots that happened in Jerusalem last year .


----------



## Shiron (Feb 19, 2007)

funky gibbon said:


> What does open-mindedness got to do with homosexuality, it's not normal no matter how you look at it. one thing though I seem to attract queers a lot!!! *shivers*


Nature thinks it's quite normal.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 19, 2007)

See it's people like Megaharrison. I'm Muslim. (It's not Islamicist....)


----------



## funky gibbon (Feb 19, 2007)

Nate River said:
			
		

> Nature thinks it's quite normal.


First of all wikipedia is not a reliable source, secondly have you ever seen male animals fucking each other as in general? Normally the male fights with other males to protect his female or his females, and finally what a nice example you are giving me, it's normal we should accept it because some animals are doing it!!! tell me now do you take your morals and ways of living from the animals?! I sure don't. 



			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Plus the gays piss off the Islamists. I love them as a result.


.. and other religions don't condemn them to hell? What hypocrite, maybe you should send an army of gays to fight them with dildos and vibrators then!!


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 19, 2007)

Gibbion thanks about the Islamic one...


----------



## Shiron (Feb 19, 2007)

funky gibbon said:


> First of all wikipedia is not a reliable source, secondly have you ever seen male animals fucking each other as in general? Normally the male fights with other males to protect his female or his females, and finally what a nice example you are giving me, it's normal we should accept it because some animals are doing it!!! tell me now do you take your morals and ways of living from the animals?! I sure don't.


Fine then; doesn't change anything. Let's go with the sources that Wikipedia provided then, instead:



Third post down for my thoughts on the chapter.


And why I brought up animals is because you said it's not normal. Since it happens in nature, it seems normal enough to me.

And no, I wouldn't take all of my morals and such from animals. However, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, isn't contagious, or anything like that. And homosexuals, other than in their sexual preference, are just like everyone else. So, I don't have any problems with it.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 20, 2007)

First of all funky, its not neccecarly a good thing to be openminded.  But I would say you are NOT, in any way whatosever, openminded if you can't accept, or at least tolerate, homoexuality.  Again, I am not saying that is a bad thing, but don't be an idiot and a hypocrite and claim to be something you are not.  You are clearly not open minded if you say that homosexuality is unnatural and you don't like it etc etc etc.

I will rephrase this.  Maybe it is unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship.  What is natural is to fuck anything that moves, regardelss of sex or whether or not it is ok with it.  But I for one don't want to be totally 'natural'

So feel free to say what you want.  But hypocrites piss me off more than anything (whcihc is why I tent to haved so many problems with traditional religion)



> A better question would be why has it not been selected out of the gene pool a long time ago.



Your answers don't cut it.  If it was harmful, as you say, it would be gone.  At worst, it may not be considered normal, but is in no way harmful.

And again, I don't see your point.  Assuming it is a gene, assuming you are in fact right and it is a disorder, or whatever you want to say, there are still a few facts to consider.

1. it cannot be passed on, though we still let people with disorders reproduce, so even that doesn't matter

2. it is not contagiouse, so you can't really use that any sort of excuse

3.  it does not affect their ability to do any activities besides reproduce with the opposite sex

Looking at my third point, even if we accept it is a disorder, it is unnatural, whatever, if it is not a choice they can't be condemend for it, and since it doesn't affect anything besides who they sleep with, they can't be discriminated against, so not being ok with it would mean you are a horrible person, just like someone who is not ok with a midget!

So really, I can come up with NO acceptable reason to at least not tolerate it, unless you are a hateful person.

Now, I know many wonderful people who are full of hate like this.  But that is what you are, if you cannot tolerate it, full of hate, so at least admit it.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 20, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Yeah, because being gay automatically makes you sterile.
> 
> Please think before you post.




You may be asking to much of him.  But, much rep. to you for trying to enlighten him.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 20, 2007)

lecya said:


> I don't hate homosexuality at all. What two people do behind closed doors is between them, NOT them and the public.
> 
> But I do hate *the thought *of two men having butt sex... that just nasty to me, I'm so sorry to say. I think two women together look so much hotter and I'm a straight female... go figure. But that's how many people think. Nothing against gay guys or anything...
> They can do whatever they want, I don't care and I don't see why others would care either. How is them having sex and getting married affecting you? It's not. Society seriously needs to get over it.



 
_I think I may have fallen in love..._


As for gays... to each his own.


----------



## Hitsugaya Toshiro (Feb 20, 2007)

I think the best saying I ever heard for situations like this would have to be...

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."


While homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of religious people, multiple religions forbid it that's why I didn't single out just Christians, fact is for many it is a point of view.  Reguardless of what you think about the act it isn't your place to condemn a person for a decision that is not effecting you.  While you are free to hate homosexuality until the universe collapses in on itself if you hate the person for the act of homosexuality than you are no better than you claim they are.  If you preach homosexuality as a sin than chances are you also preach hatred as a sin, Jews Christians etc do this, and last I checked I believe the Bible states "don't try to remove the speck from your friends eye without first taking the plank out of your own."  

Hate the act not the person commiting the act.  Reguardless of your personal views on the act the person commiting them is still human and are intitled to the same rights and respect as you are.  Society unfortunatlly has forgotten this concept.


I might as well go on and throw out something though.  Yes I am Christian and while I hate homosexuality as an act and view it very much as a sin I still have friends who are homosexual.  When I became Christian I was called to love everyone reguardless of their preferences and actions.  It isn't my place to judge them or condemn them.  While I don't support their homosexuality, and they understand that, they still know that I am someone they can trust and talk to and that I care for them just like I do all of my friends and I treat them just like I would any other friend, aka I'm not afraid to change cloths in front of them in the lockerroom or something.  Everyone deserves the grace of a friend and to be treated as a normal human reguardless of their choices.


----------



## The_X_box_360 (Feb 20, 2007)

Nice post, Hitsugaya, much rep. to you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Feb 20, 2007)

I don't think its right, I don't agree with it, but its their choice and I hold it against no one.


----------



## botoman (Feb 20, 2007)

I am overall okay with homosexuality, despite other people in my church telling me it's not. Of course, in the beginning I wasn't okay with it. I didn't what to think about homosexuality but over time I realized that that's just how they are.  I don't really give much thought to it being unnatural or whatever, but I suppose from a reproductive pov it is, seeing as how babies aren't born that way. But I believe it's their lives and their relationships.

However, as for the whole buttsecks argument, I don't like hearing about my friends' intimate/sex lives because it's just not something I'm comfortable talking  about for extended periods of time. Having said that, I much less want to hear about 2 guys getting it on.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 20, 2007)

sj2k said:


> First of all funky, its not neccecarly a good thing to be openminded.  But I would say you are NOT, in any way whatosever, openminded if you can't accept, or at least tolerate, homoexuality.  Again, I am not saying that is a bad thing, but don't be an idiot and a hypocrite and claim to be something you are not.  You are clearly not open minded if you say that homosexuality is unnatural and you don't like it etc etc etc.
> 
> I will rephrase this.  Maybe it is unnatural to be in a homosexual relationship.  What is natural is to fuck anything that moves, regardelss of sex or whether or not it is ok with it.  But I for one don't want to be totally 'natural'
> 
> ...



Well atleast your open to the notion it could be a disorder. Most people are deaf to anything that could remotely be negative about the issue. Such as claiming that from an genetic point of view, it lowers fitness. 

I do tolerate it and am not full of hate. As i pointed out at the start, i do not make judgments on such a thing. It would be like hating people with hereditary dieseases, furthermore im perfectly aware that a survival of the fittest, eugenetic view on such a matter is something more akin to Fascism/Nazi Germany. 

"Your answers don't cut it.  If it was harmful, as you say, it would be gone.  At worst, it may not be considered normal, but is in no way harmful." 

Oh please, like all the heraditary/genetic diseases and disorders are gone? Why is i*c*st even that bad? Because we carry alot of recessive faulty genes?? Why hasent that been selected out of us already? 
Why arent we a superhuman breed yet?  

I have repeatedly answered why it would not dissapear. One of the reasons is that it is only mildly selected against, as (esp in the past) homosexuals did get children. Hence its not that harmful. Especially if its recessive or there are a whole mix of genes at play, it could easily survive throughout history.

If its in no way hereditary at all, it must be a common mutation, or could be a fault during early morphology or maybe it is a choice afterall.
in which case it would not dissapear as well, as it cant be selected against.


----------



## Shevek (Feb 20, 2007)

Zabuzalives said:


> Ehm this talk is already pretty hypothetical, and im not looking up evidence from a purely hypothetical gene where this hasnt been reasearched yet...
> 
> But its just pretty logical:
> 
> ...


1. They can help taking care of more than one child. And the child mortality used to be high. So you just can't draw any conclusions that easily.

2. I'm not going to say how. I can't say how, just like I can't say how having exactly five toes is better than having four or six toes. What are the advantages of being left-handed? I have no idea.

It's spreading to new individuals, I'm sure you understood that's what I meant.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 20, 2007)

It has nothing to do with genes....
I think it more of what you were taught. 
You grew up watching your mother and father kiss and hug. So you think this is right. If you grew up watching your parents that are two men kissing and huging you would think this is right. Also it says that 80% of gay males had bad fathers. So they lived and got taught by there mother. They see there mother dateing men. They might think this is right....


----------



## Shiron (Feb 20, 2007)

Sound Village Chuunin said:


> It has nothing to do with genes....
> I think it more of what you were taught.
> You grew up watching your mother and father kiss and hug. So you think this is right. If you grew up watching your parents that are two men kissing and huging you would think this is right. *Also it says that 80% of gay males had bad fathers.* So they lived and got taught by there mother. They see there mother dateing men. They might think this is right....


Source for this statistic, please? 

Not to mention I'm not seeing anything to verify that your theory is right and the gene one is wrong...


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 20, 2007)

Sound Village Chuunin said:


> Also it says that 80% of gay males had bad fathers.



92% of stats are pulled out of someone's ass.

Also, there's no evidence to support your theory. Kids raised by gay couples do not grow up to be gay. Scientists have identified the part of the brain responsible for determining sexual orientation, so all the evidence stacks up in favour of nature rather than nurture.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 20, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> 92% of stats are pulled out of someone's ass



No need to be an Asshat.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 20, 2007)

Doh, Am already got the stat one for me.  Sound, it is just a common saying.

However, that stastistic sounds quite absurd to me, I would like to see a source


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 20, 2007)

Sound Village Chuunin said:


> No need to be an Asshat.



Asshatery is up 12% from last year.


----------



## Parallax (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm actually not comfortable about anyone talking about their sexual experiences or thoughts.  I prefer that people keep it to themselves.  Though I have no problems with Gays, Lesbians, or any sexual choice you make, I just don't need to hear about it.


----------



## Ketchups (Feb 20, 2007)

There are too many topics about homosexuality   People just need to accept it and move on. It won't go away, no point in discussing it over and over again. I hate narrow-minded people, bleh.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 20, 2007)

Shevek said:


> 1. They can help taking care of more than one child. And the child mortality used to be high. So you just can't draw any conclusions that easily.
> 
> 2. I'm not going to say how. I can't say how, just like I can't say how having exactly five toes is better than having four or six toes. What are the advantages of being left-handed? I have no idea.
> 
> It's spreading to new individuals, I'm sure you understood that's what I meant.



Im not drawing conclusions that easily i have thought about this and got alot of background knowledge in this stuff. 

1. They can help care for more then one child, yeah and heterosexuals do that to. Its in almost every human to help his family. Being gay does not make you magically better at this.

The unattached argument, for gays with no children, well first just that people have children doesnt mean they dont help out their family. Also there are also singles, elderly, teens. or people who arent able to give birth to look after a groups children. 

And its not just taking care of more then one kids from a family member, its being essential for their survival. And remember save twice as many nephews as they have half the gene simularity compared to your own children (that you do not get) 

And with high child mortality, how is having less offspring considered good? 

2. See, thats my point, neither can I. So gays have fewer children on average, but do not make up for that by being that much better then heterosexuals in helping close family members to survive and reproduce

Reduced fitness, hence You, or I could call it a genetic deficiency or abnormality. (if its indeed this gay-genes thing)


----------



## Oathkeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

omg, who wouldnt be ok with homosexuality? well i guess that answers its self. but i dont hate gays. theyre actually more fun to hang out with(if they are gay guys) than staight guys sometimes. my older bro is gay. he is currently going to collage at Aubrun(Alamama) with his bf. hes 19(bf 21). he got a kitty. her name is Ally May. she is just so cute. sorry to ramble a little. just some info...


----------



## Bender (Feb 20, 2007)

Homosexuality is amazing cuz not only do they abuse the straight people but also the fact that they have to attract so much negative attention from people. It's right to them because they can't define perversion or much less care. They're the carefree population of the world who think they do what they pleasse. They're annoying. I don't hate them but It seriously needs to stop.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 20, 2007)

The real definition of homophobe: "One who has an *irrational* fear, hated, or disdain for homosexuals, homosexuality, or homosexual culture."

The fake definition of homophobe used by gay special rights activists and heterophobes: "Those who don't accept homosexuality and encourage it as normal and good like I do."


----------



## Harmonie (Feb 20, 2007)

Believe It! you're a homophobe no matters which definition we're using.

In fact the "real" definition fits you more then the last.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 20, 2007)

And c-dog agains shows his ignorance.



> Homosexuality is amazing cuz not only do they abuse the straight people but also the fact that they have to attract so much negative attention from people. It's right to them because they can't define perversion or much less care. They're the carefree population of the world who think they do what they pleasse. They're annoying. I don't hate them but It seriously needs to stop.



you know, since you changed your mind your post quality has gone down.  I used to disagree with what you said, and you had a real problem with understanding a few basic concepts (like judaism), but overall you were inteliggent.  This post is just, well, not.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 20, 2007)

> "One who has an irrational fear, hated, or disdain for homosexuals, homosexuality, or homosexual culture."[/QUOTE
> 
> Ah, BI, since there is really no rational fear, its just someone who hates it.
> anyways, urban dictionary has a different opinion.
> ...


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 20, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Homosexuality is amazing cuz not only do they abuse the straight people but also the fact that they have to attract so much negative attention from people. It's right to them because they can't define perversion or much less care. They're the carefree population of the world who think they do what they pleasse. They're annoying. I don't hate them but It seriously needs to stop.



Haha, yeah. There's no such thing as gays - just straight people doing naughty things.  

Go back to kindergarten and start over again from scratch. Seriously. Unless you are mentally challenged, there is no reason a person with a decent education should come up with half the bullshit you come out with.


----------



## Bender (Feb 20, 2007)

sj2k said:


> And c-dog agains shows his ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> you know, since you changed your mind your post quality has gone down.  I used to disagree with what you said, and you had a real problem with understanding a few basic concepts (like judaism), but overall you were inteliggent.  This post is just, well, not.



Really? So your post are supposed to be better then mine? Due to the fact you have to link religion with all sorts of shit and can't even prove a logical point besides you and DA always swimming back and forth with ignorance. Homosexuals think that they owe their bodies more and that It's best if they pay more attention to what It's saying and think that because of how content they are around the same sex that It means they should be homosexuals. If anything sometimes our mind plays tricks on ourselves and It's the same thing as homosexuality. It's just like a desert and you think you're seeing something which is not there. 

It's fake.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 20, 2007)

> Really? So your post are supposed to be better then mine? Due to the fact you have to link religion with all sorts of shit and can't even prove a logical point besides you and DA always swimming back and forth with ignorance. Homosexuals think that they owe their bodies more and that It's best if they pay more attention to what It's saying and think that because of how content they are around the same sex that It means they should be homosexuals. If anything sometimes our mind plays tricks on ourselves and It's the same thing as homosexuality. It's just like a desert and you think you're seeing something which is not there.
> 
> It's fake.



see, this is the good old C-dog I knew.  I never said your oppinoins were wrong, just that you used to post it in a better manner.  like here.  compare what you said here to what you said before.  HUGE difference.

And while again you show ignorance to the obviouse, that it is not fake, I know that is not goign to change.  In fact, the only thing I really am hoping to change you in is your understanding of judaism 

Edit:  anyways, you a nuggets fan not that the answer is in denver?


----------



## Bender (Feb 20, 2007)

sj2k said:


> see, this is the good old C-dog I knew.  I never said your oppinoins were wrong, just that you used to post it in a better manner.  like here.  compare what you said here to what you said before.  HUGE difference.
> 
> And while again you show ignorance to the obviouse, that it is not fake, I know that is not goign to change.  In fact, the only thing I really am hoping to change you in is your understanding of judaism
> 
> Edit:  anyways, you a nuggets fan not that the answer is in denver?



Give me a good reason why It's not fake and I,ll shut up until then I'm still talking baby cuz I know It is fake. The idea that you love someone may be real but the idea that you since you're comfortable around the same sex means your gay is fake. It's stupid and just plain wrong. 

So as I said before give me a reason besides talking and calling me "ignorant". It baffles me how you think you know why It's true. 

Also I couldn't give a rat's ass about Judaism this is about Homosexualit's so let's start talking about the homo's.


----------



## Ketchups (Feb 21, 2007)

C-dog, it's not only being comfortable around the same sex but being attracted to the same sex too. And it's not 'fake'.


----------



## Bender (Feb 21, 2007)

Ketchup said:


> C-dog, it's not only being comfortable around the same sex but being attracted to the same sex too. And it's not 'fake'.



Love isn't all just about being comfortable but being with someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. Homosexuality is 100% fake cuz people can't resist the temptations of the body which fool you sometimes. They're insecure about what they really want. It's unnatural and disgusting and doesn't belong in society.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 21, 2007)

About the ex-NBA star who "came out" about hating gay people, I must say that he has every right to feel uncomfortable around anyone he doesn't like. Believe it!

There are rational reasons to hate homosexuality, fear the actions and agendas of certain homosexuals, and have disdain for their practices and their "culture". Just because you don't see or understand those reasons does not mean they don't exist or are not rational.


----------



## Sphyer (Feb 21, 2007)

In anycase if people arent approving of gay people then thats ok and it shouldent be shoved down there throats. I also think they have that right to not support it as long as they dont go all homophobic and treat them like there not human. Dislike the prefernce not the person ^^.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 21, 2007)

Right. Homosexuals are people just like you and me. Not like sj2k, Firedraconian, and Amaretti though since they are animals according to their own beliefs. HA! (No, they seriously think they are animals) Anyway, gay people should be treated with respect and should not be looked down upon simply because of that bad choice they have made in their lives. They should be supported as human beings who are capible of change and making one's self better. Believe it!

It is really ironic how the pro-gay side is actually the gay person's biggest threat and enemy. They tell the homosexuals that they cannot change who they are, that they should not bother to better themselves, and that it is the majority that must change to accept the wrongful acts that they do.

I say from this point on, it is the "pro-gay" side that should be deemed as homophobic, since they are irrational by nature and their continued support for wrong lifestyles and oppression of effort to change can be seen as hateful and fearful! Believe it!

Who's with me?


----------



## Turnip Girl (Feb 21, 2007)

Believe it! said:


> Who's with me?



I'm never with you, dearest BI!, and I fully suspect that you know that by now.


I don't like racism. As a result, I don't like racists. Hypocritical, but true. 
You can't hate a practice and then say 'oh, but I don't hate the people that do it'. They're going to be offended regardless.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 21, 2007)

> but the idea that you since you're comfortable around the same sex means your gay is fake. It's stupid and just plain wrong.



I agree.  that has nothing to do with being gay, and whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about.  Being gay means you are ATTRACTED to only the same sex.  If you attracted to both genders you are bi, and if you are attracted to the opposite you are straight.

Being comfortable around the same sex just means you are normal.



> About the ex-NBA star who "came out" about hating gay people, I must say that he has every right to feel uncomfortable around anyone he doesn't like. Believe it!



yeah, he does every right.  He was also an idiot because the commisioner is so worried about being PC he tried to switch away from leather balls!  So clearly saying he hated gays would get him in trouble.  Its now what he said, as much as it is he personally executed his cash cow.



> Right. Homosexuals are people just like you and me. Not like sj2k, Firedraconian, and Amaretti though since they are animals according to their own beliefs. HA! (No, they seriously think they are animals)



actually, most of the world agree that they fit into the animal kingdom...


----------



## AmitG1984 (Feb 21, 2007)

i don't like gays but there are always exceptions in everything!so they should be treated equally!


----------



## Bender (Feb 21, 2007)

Sj2k said:
			
		

> I agree. that has nothing to do with being gay, and whoever said that doesn't know what they are talking about. Being gay means you are ATTRACTED to only the same sex. If you attracted to both genders you are bi, and if you are attracted to the opposite you are straight.
> 
> Being comfortable around the same sex just means you are normal.



Being gay is listening to what your body says because sometimes It can play tricks on you and evidently doing the wrong thing.


----------



## Harmonie (Feb 21, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Being gay is listening to what your body says because sometimes It can play tricks on you and evidently doing the wrong thing.



What makes what a straight person's body is telling them to do right?

I want a serious answer here. Not "It's less disgusting!" or "It's more socially acceptable."


----------



## IBU (Feb 21, 2007)

Bassoonist said:


> What makes what a straight person's body is telling them to do right?



Because religion says so. (sarcasm)


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 21, 2007)

Mystic8516 said:


> In anycase if people arent approving of gay people then thats ok and it shouldent be shoved down there throats. I also think they have that right to not support it as long as they dont go all homophobic and treat them like there not human. Dislike the prefernce not the person ^^.



Yeah. I feel the same way.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 21, 2007)

It isn't our bodies that tell us that being attracted to the opposite sex is right and natural, it is our minds, thoughts, and consciences. Believe it!


----------



## sj2k (Feb 21, 2007)

BI as usual is wrong.  Since my mind thought and consience says its fine, even if I am not personally gay.

C-dog, if your body says it is right, and your mind says it is right, and your heart says it is right, in this particular case I do not see what is wrong.


----------



## Neco (Feb 22, 2007)

Why do so many people care about this issue I'm not gay but what they do in there personal life doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

sj2k said:


> BI as usual is wrong.  Since my mind thought and consience says its fine, even if I am not personally gay.
> 
> C-dog, if your body says it is right, and your mind says it is right, and your heart says it is right, in this particular case I do not see what is wrong.



If the thought in your mind is too strong and the body says so then It overwhelms you and is one of the negatives of the body since It prompts you to commit yourself to the disgusting practice of homosexuality the very thing that goes against nature.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 22, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> My litmus test for these things is to substitute to word "black" for "gay". If you can pass that you're pretty much up to snuff.




This is what I have a huge problem with. It's not the same. Blacks were treated as less than equals for centuries. Gays haven't been denied the right to vote. There are no gay only or straight only bathrooms. Gays werent FORCED to eat in the back of the restaurant or ride in the back of the bus. Gays werent assaulted by police with fire hoses. There are no gay Jim Crow laws. Gays werent lynched and murdered like Blacks were in the past. Gays werent made to be slaves. Gays have not been subject to sub-human treatment. The homosexual rights movement pales in comparison to the Civil rights movement. To compare the 2 is ridiculous. A person cant hide the fact that his is Black nor can any other non-white ethnic group. If another person says that the struggles of Blacks and Gays are the same I'm gonna scream!


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 22, 2007)

> If the thought in your mind is too strong and the body says so then It overwhelms you and is one of the negatives of the body since It prompts you to commit yourself to the disgusting practice of homosexuality the very thing that goes against nature.



Where the hell are you getting this from? No one's mind or body works that way. Maybe yours does, I don't know, but what you are describing is complete nonsense. People are gay the same way people are straight. I'll assume you're straight, and as a straight person, I assume you never had to convince yourself you were straight. You've always liked girls rather than guys and that was it. For gay people it's the opposite. Perhaps they go with one or two members of the opposite sex because they feel they're supposed to, but if you're gay there will always have been an attraction to members of the same sex. It's not something you can control or change, just as you can't control or change your attraction to girls.

You would know this if you stopped to think for two seconds about how your own sexuality works. But rather than _think_ for yourself, you've drowned yourself in bigoted drivel from others who hate gays. Rather than listen to common sense, you listen to morons and in turn, you talk like a moron as well.

Seriously, I've never seen such ill-informed judgement on homosexuality. I've never seen anyone talk so much shit about something they know nothing about. Go away and learn about homosexuality from qualified people - like doctors and psychiatricts - and stop depending on evangelical wankers like Ted Haggard to get your gay info. 



> If another person says that the struggles of Blacks and Gays are the same I'm gonna scream!



Uh, you're looking too deep into the comparison. It should have been obvious. Skin colour is inate. Sexual orientation is also inate. To discriminate against or hate something that is integral to a person's being is wrong. People know that it is wrong to discriminate against skin colour, so why is discriminating against another kind of inate trait acceptable?


----------



## IBU (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> If the thought in your mind is too strong and the body says so then It overwhelms you and is one of the negatives of the body since It prompts you to commit yourself to the disgusting practice of homosexuality the very thing that goes against nature.



Even if I were to grant you that homosexuality is unnatural that would not make it wrong. This seems to be your logic if something is unnatural than it is immoral.  However in many cases seemingly unnatural acts can be seen as moral. For example if a person works hard and gives a large portion of their money to charity, they are seen as a moral and good being. However by your logic they would be immoral for resisting their desire, since greed and desire in general are two cornerstones of human nature.

Another example is the case of Vegetarianism in humans. Vegetarianism is not natural in humans. But to many animal rights activists and utilitarians like Peter Singer, vegetarianism is far more moral than being an omnivore because of the smaller amount of pain created by this diet. So the fact that something is unnatural to you does not make it immoral. Natural does not equal ethical.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

Yeah c-dog, as said, you have said homosexuality is immoral and unatural and wrong, but you have yet to say WHY.



> This is what I have a huge problem with. It's not the same. Blacks were treated as less than equals for centuries. Gays haven't been denied the right to vote. There are no gay only or straight only bathrooms. Gays werent FORCED to eat in the back of the restaurant or ride in the back of the bus. Gays werent assaulted by police with fire hoses. There are no gay Jim Crow laws. Gays werent lynched and murdered like Blacks were in the past. Gays werent made to be slaves. Gays have not been subject to sub-human treatment. The homosexual rights movement pales in comparison to the Civil rights movement. To compare the 2 is ridiculous. A person cant hide the fact that his is Black nor can any other non-white ethnic group. If another person says that the struggles of Blacks and Gays are the same I'm gonna scream!



its not exactly the same.  But it is people being discriminated against for something they can't control.  And I don't understand why people feel like blacks have the ultimate trump card in terms of discrimination anywyas.  Discrimination sucks, it always did, it always has.  Many groups have faced horrible things that nobody should have had to go through.  To say my pain was worse than yours just makes no sense.  My ancestor was a slave, yeah well my ancestor went to a concentration camp, well my ancestor was an aulet who was nuked.  Its all awful, eventually you get to a place where one is not worse than the other.  I personally use the reference to the civil rights movement because that is what this is, another civil rights movement, granted for some different things


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Yeah c-dog, as said, you have said homosexuality is immoral and unatural and wrong, but you have yet to say WHY.



It's as I said before It goes against nature, simple as that.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Where the hell are you getting this from? No one's mind or body works that way. Maybe yours does, I don't know, but what you are describing is complete nonsense. People are gay the same way people are straight. I'll assume you're straight, and as a straight person, I assume you never had to convince yourself you were straight. You've always liked girls rather than guys and that was it. For gay people it's the opposite. Perhaps they go with one or two members of the opposite sex because they feel they're supposed to, but if you're gay there will always have been an attraction to members of the same sex. It's not something you can control or change, just as you can't control or change your attraction to girls.



Do you even know what your talking about? I,ll anwser this for you. The anwser is no I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about I'm not sure you heard of this but people have control over their own bodies and that goes especially for homosexuals. People in the beginning were never gay and they should,ve never become in the first place.


----------



## Link (Feb 22, 2007)

People in the beginning don't have a sexuality to begin with.. that's what puberty is for...
Edit: OMG it's blaze D:


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 22, 2007)

Turnip Girl said:
			
		

> You can't hate a practice and then say 'oh, but I don't hate the people that do it'. They're going to be offended regardless.



So it is impossible to hate liberalism but still like people who are liberal? It is impossible to hate swearing and still like people who use swear words?

You fail!



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> actually, most of the world agree that they fit into the animal kingdom...



They? Who are "they" sj2k? Are you referring to homosexuals?



			
				C-Dog said:
			
		

> Being gay is listening to what your body says because sometimes It can play tricks on you and evidently doing the wrong thing.



Being gay is listening to what the immoral part of your mind tells you, as is the case with all bad choices in life.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> BI as usual is wrong. Since my mind thought and consience says its fine, even if I am not personally gay.



I am right because you lack the power to define your idea of right as the social standard, I do not. Those who have the power to take the lives of others define right and wrong (when you eliminate God from the discussion). In America, the power to take the lives of others comes in the form of the majority. I am a part of the majority, therefore I am right.

Another example. Who says that murder is wrong? By sj2k's logic, obviously not those who know that it is based on what their consciences tell them, since there are people whose minds tell them it is perfectly moral to cut someone's head off. Ahkmadimijad over in Iran thinks murder is a good thing, so obviously the moral majority, as usual, is wrong. Since not everyone sees murder as wrong, it means it is not wrong. That is sj2k's "logic" for you.

So, obviously sj2k's statement above is false. His view that it is not wrong does not mean it is not wrong. His failure to see it as wrong may be due to the fact that he has the mental disorder known as liberalism, which was discovered to be a mental disorder by a certified doctor.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> C-dog, if your body says it is right, and your mind says it is right, and your heart says it is right, in this particular case I do not see what is wrong.



What if your body, mind, and heart says it is right to murder someone?



			
				Ichigo825 said:
			
		

> Why do so many people care about this issue I'm not gay but what they do in there personal life doesn't matter to me.



Exactly what I think. What happens in their private lives does not concern me. However, that doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion on the lifestyle, especially when there are sickos who are trying to force it down my throat to accept as moral and normal. Believe it!



			
				C-Dog said:
			
		

> If the thought in your mind is too strong and the body says so then It overwhelms you



That is true, but the mind can deny such impulses. Therefore the person is always to blame for the choice they make.



			
				Itanji Kuraisu said:
			
		

> This is what I have a huge problem with. It's not the same. Blacks were treated as less than equals for centuries. Gays haven't been denied the right to vote. There are no gay only or straight only bathrooms. Gays werent FORCED to eat in the back of the restaurant or ride in the back of the bus. Gays werent assaulted by police with fire hoses. There are no gay Jim Crow laws. Gays werent lynched and murdered like Blacks were in the past. Gays werent made to be slaves. Gays have not been subject to sub-human treatment. The homosexual rights movement pales in comparison to the Civil rights movement. To compare the 2 is ridiculous. A person cant hide the fact that his is Black nor can any other non-white ethnic group. If another person says that the struggles of Blacks and Gays are the same I'm gonna scream!



You tell them! I have quoted you for truth. I will have to make two posts now, but I don't care. This has to be quoted. You are correct on every single point. The blacks see it as so repugnant and insulting when gays compare themselves and their "oppression" to what the blacks are and what they went through.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> People are gay the same way people are straight.



Right, by choice.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> I'll assume you're straight, and as a straight person, I assume you never had to convince yourself you were straight. You've always liked girls rather than guys and that was it.



And WHY was that? That is the question. Personally, I always have because I see that as the only correct way of life. It is the only logical answer and the only realistic option. Men and women were MADE for each other in every single way. It is what is natural.

I choose to be straight because that is what my mind and conscience tell me, not because I have the "straight gene".



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> For gay people it's the opposite.



It is the opposite. They don't see things logically, they hold sexual satisfaction above normality and they deny the natural order. They choose to indulge in kinky things because that is what gets them off. That is what gives them a more satisfying orgasm. That is what it comes down to, in most cases. In other cases it is done out of rebellion against the parents and society, because some people define their lives through suffering and hardship. They bring problems on themselves because they love drama more than happiness and fulfillment. Other cases are those of confusion or mental instabilities and those people need help. Those that acknowledge the fact that they choose it and do not care how wrong it is are the people I am not concerned with when they practice their lifestyle in private.

It isn't right what they do, but I am not going to treat them differently based on that one wrong choice.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> It's not something you can control or change, just as you can't control or change your attraction to girls.



Excuse me, I can control my attraction to girls, and so can everyone else. I can choose not to look at a woman's breasts and lust after her. I can choose not to date. I can choose not to have kids. I can choose anything I want.

And this is the problem I have with you and people like you, is that you people are so quick to oppress gay people and put them down by telling them that they cannot change. You lie to them and tell them that they can't help who they are, that they can hurt themselves if they try to change or repress their behavior, that they cannot change how they were born (unless it is to mutilate their bodies of course), and that it is SOCIETY that has to change to accept their immoral and incorrect lifestyle. You are the biggest enemies of gay people everywhere. You are the ones oppressing them and treating them as sub-humans. You are the ones telling them that they have no will power and are incapable of bettering themselves. You are the homophobes, and the bigots, and the fascists, and the great deceivers. Gay people are your SLAVES that you are exploiting! Believe it!



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Rather than listen to common sense, you listen to morons



Coming from you that is a compliment. I love it when you call us morons because it lets me know just how right we are on the issues.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> I've never seen anyone talk so much shit about something they know nothing about.



Then allow me to inform you about this invention called the mirror.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Go away and learn about homosexuality from qualified people - like doctors and psychiatricts



Different doctors and shrinks all have very different opinions on the issue, and so do the patients.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Sexual orientation is also inate.



Proof?



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> To discriminate against or hate something that is integral to a person's being is wrong.



I agree, but homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 22, 2007)

Amaretti said:
			
		

> People know that it is wrong to discriminate against skin colour, so why is discriminating against another kind of inate trait acceptable?



Because it is not innate and it is not natural. It is wrong. That is why.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> Even if I were to grant you that homosexuality is unnatural that would not make it wrong.



Correct, but it would indicate that it could be, and it would lead us to the conclusion that it was. It would depend on other facts though.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> For example if a person works hard and gives a large portion of their money to charity, they are seen as a moral and good being. However by your logic they would be immoral for resisting their desire, since greed and desire in general are two cornerstones of human nature.



So is charity and the desire to help others. Moot point.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> Another example is the case of Vegetarianism in humans. Vegetarianism is not natural in humans.



It is also wrong though. It is not immoral per se', because immoral denotes a wrongness of the soul. Vegetarianism is a wrongness of body, which makes it a stupid thing to do. However, the belief that animals should not be killed for food can have some moral concepts, but ultimately it is illogical and ignorant because animals exist for the purpose of being used by man.

I wouldn't say it is immoral, but it is definitely incompetent.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> So the fact that something is unnatural to you does not make it immoral.



I agree that it cannot just be unnatural to the person making the claim. It should have to be unnatural to nature or human nature.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> Natural does not equal ethical.



I agree with that too. Natural does not always equal right, but unnatural always equal wrong.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> its not exactly the same. But it is people being discriminated against for something they can't control.



Well guess what, the KKK can't control the fact that they are hateful and prejudice against blacks. How's that? The KKK can't change the fact that they were born to carry out violent acts against blacks. Also, they see what they do as right, so you can't say they are wrong. So please tell me why I am wrong here and refute your own argument for me.

Or ignore it like you do all of my hardball points.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> I personally use the reference to the civil rights movement because that is what this is, another civil rights movement, granted for some different things



Wrong. You use it to equate the refusal to accept a behavior with the refusal to accept a race. Believe it!


----------



## Shevek (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> It's as I said before It goes against nature, simple as that.


Yoo! Displease Motha Nature, and face her wrath!!!


----------



## Zephos (Feb 22, 2007)

> It's as I said before It goes against nature, simple as that.



Its OBSERVED in nature. End of discussion.





> Do you even know what your talking about? I,ll anwser this for you. The anwser is no I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about I'm not sure you heard of this but people have control over their own bodies and that goes especially for homosexuals. People in the beginning were never gay and they should,ve never become in the first place.



Cite or concede.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

> It's as I said before It goes against nature, simple as that.



I don't think you get it C.  That means NOTHING.  Assuming it goes against nature, and I don't htink it does, nature still does not always equal good and moral.



> which was discovered to be a mental disorder by a certified doctor.



yes, a doctor in botany 



> Well guess what, the KKK can't control the fact that they are hateful and prejudice against blacks. How's that? The KKK can't change the fact that they were born to carry out violent acts against blacks. Also, they see what they do as right, so you can't say they are wrong. So please tell me why I am wrong here and refute your own argument for me.



I responded.  So don't keep using the argument I don't respond, I haven't adressed you ending post because as I said I ahve not had the time I want to give it.  If you want I can not do a good job on that one though.  As for this, ok, lets accept that.  But for our society to function, we must believe that free will exists.  Otherwise it would fall apart, because of theories like what you stated.  But how do we know where to draw the line?  I guess we don't know.  One extreme is what you said.  The other is saying people should be able to control the color of their skin.  Clearly it is somewhere int he middle.  I, and most MEDICAL doctors, believe sexual orientation is also like that.


----------



## IBU (Feb 22, 2007)

Believe it! said:


> Because it is not innate and it is not natural. It is wrong. That is why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that is is hilarious that you think that being a vegetarian is wrong. What if it is done for the sake of health and diet, is that wrong because the person is not using the animals as food that "god" gave us? 

You believe that the desire to help others to give to charity is natural for human beings? One need only look at the world to see that the vast majority of humans do not have a natural desire to impartially help others. For the cost of a latte a person could save at least 3 children in Africa from fatal diarrhea through the purchase of rehydration salts. However, what percentage of people give to charity? Very few, so i think it is sufficient to say that desire to give to charity is not natural

Which leads to a contradiction in your statements you say that unnatural is always unethical? Yet i am pretty sure you are of the christian faith. A virture liking giving to charity is something completely unnatural, most people only care about themselves and those close to them. They really dont have alot of compassion for people on a different continent. So if we follow your logic that unnatural always equals unethical than those who give to charity would be unethical, because they resist their natural self interested behaviour and try to better themselves above the level of our natural animal instincts.

So if unnatural always equals unethical we should be punishing those immoral people who are able to be selfless.

So the fact that homosexuality by your definition is unnatural does not make it immoral.


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Do you even know what your talking about? I,ll anwser this for you. The anwser is no I have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about I'm not sure you heard of this but people have control over their own bodies and that goes especially for homosexuals. People in the beginning were never gay and they should,ve never become in the first place.



Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual?

If the answer is 'yes', you're probably gay. If the answer is 'no', you've undermined you whole argument. You cannot choose your sexuality. You did not choose to be straight, you just _are_. Gay people do not choose to be gay. They just _are_.

I know you got jipped on brains when you were born, but if it's not too much trouble, *try* to understand that *simple* fact. Most people can. Why can't you?


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

sj2k said:


> I don't think you get it C.  That means NOTHING.  Assuming it goes against nature, and I don't htink it does, nature still does not always equal good and moral.



What the hell do you mean It means "nothing"?  Are you stupid? It does It's pure and is made of peace and tranquility.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual?
> 
> If the answer is 'yes', you're probably gay. If the answer is 'no', you've undermined you whole argument. You cannot choose your sexuality. You did not choose to be straight, you just _are_. Gay people do not choose to be gay. They just _are_.
> 
> I know you got jipped on brains when you were born, but if it's not too much trouble, *try* to understand that *simple* fact. Most people can. Why can't you?



I was born straight as was everyone else though they choose to be apart of something so immoral and perverted. It's pathetic.


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> I was born straight as was everyone else though they choose to be apart of something so immoral and perverted. It's pathetic.



If you truly believe then the only person you are harming is yourself. Right now you could be educating yourself properly but instead you're choosing to remain wilfully ignorant in order to justify your hate of people who are different from you.

_That_ is pathetic.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> If you truly believe then the only person you are harming is yourself. Right now you could be educating yourself properly but instead you're choosing to remain wilfully ignorant in order to justify your hate of people who are different from you.
> 
> _That_ is pathetic.



Why do I need to be ignorant no one need to even read a book to tell if Homosexuality is wrong? Something that is not natural and goes against what nature intended is not needed in society. Running around like little pagans.


----------



## IBU (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Why do I need to be ignorant no one need to even read a book to tell if Homosexuality is wrong? Something that is not natural and goes against what nature intended is not needed in society. Running around like little pagans.



Without paganism, christianity and thus western society would probably very different today. Rich pagans in Rome helped spread christian theology because of their affinity for it. This new religion presented them with a glorious afterlife that could be attained if one had faith and repented their sins. So the point is Paganism was necessary for Christianity's spread and for the creation of Europe and thus the modern western world. So the comment you made is ignorant and uncalled for.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

funkmasterswede said:


> Without paganism, christianity and thus western society would probably very different today. Rich pagans in Rome helped spread christian theology because of their affinity for it. This new religion presented them with a glorious afterlife that could be attained if one had faith and repented their sins. So the point is Paganism was necessary for Christianity's spread and for the creation of Europe and thus the modern western world. So the comment you made is ignorant and uncalled for.



I don't get it why homosexuality is needed in society It's the same as using racial slurs It's unecessary. My comment wasn't needed and It's the same with Homosexuality. I don't hate them or nothing but their reason for switching sexual orientation is weird.


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Why do I need to be ignorant no one need to even read a book to tell if Homosexuality is wrong? Something that is not natural and goes against what nature intended is not needed in society. Running around like little pagans.



Oh, there you go about the pagans again.  You don't know what 'pagan' means, obviously, so don't use it. That's on your list remember?

And yes, you DO need to read. If you think you don't need to read to learn things, that probably explains a lot about you.

So here are some of opinions on homosexuality of _qualified_ medical organisations:

American Psychiatric Organisation

American Academy of Pediatrics

You will not find ANY qualified doctor, psychiatrist or medical health care professional saying the things you have said. If you disregard all this research and all these *facts*, you have only yourself to blame. You have been given every opportunity to pull yourself out of whatever ignorant mindset you've gotten yourself into, and if you forsake it all for the sake of preserving your hate, you are truly one of the most disgusting people I have ever had the misfortune to come across.



> I don't get it why homosexuality is needed in society It's the same as using racial slurs It's unecessary. My comment wasn't needed and It's the same with Homosexuality. I don't hate them or nothing but their reason for switching sexual orientation is weird.



Left-handedness is not needed. Disabilities and handicaps are not needed. Blondes are not needed. Blacks aren't needed.

Do we have any right to snub these people as a result? We're all human beings - yes, even the gays. We're all entitled to be treated fairly and given our due rights.


----------



## Bender (Feb 22, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Oh, there you go about the pagans again.  You don't know what 'pagan' means, obviously, so don't use it. That's on your list remember?
> 
> And yes, you DO need to read. If you think you don't need to read to learn things, that probably explains a lot about you.
> 
> ...




First off the whole black comment was unecessary and yes they are needed. Tell me what do Homosexuals do for society? Are they needed? No. They're humans beings  who have followed the wrong path.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> First off the whole black comment was unecessary and yes they are needed. Tell me what do Homosexuals do for society? Are they needed? No. They're humans beings  who have followed the wrong path.



No, no race is truly 'needed.' If black people were to just disappear one day, the world would manage; it would keep on spinning so to speak. This is true about any race. Naturally there'd be varying consequences to the disappearance of a race of people depending on the race (factors like population) but no single race is vital.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 22, 2007)

Believe it! said:


> I am right because you lack the power to define your idea of right as the social standard, I do not. Those who have the power to take the lives of others define right and wrong (when you eliminate God from the discussion). In America, the power to take the lives of others comes in the form of the majority. I am a part of the majority, therefore I am right.



You should think twice before advocating that view because it basically amounts to mob rule or might makes right. By that line of logic, it would be "right" for the Chinese government or the Iranian government to kill and imprison Christians because they do not line up to majority belief in their countries. Christians are a very, very minor group in those countries and the government and majority of the people definitely have the power to kill them. However, that doesn't make it right for those governments to oppress them. Your Christian position might make you in the majority in the USA (though given your extreme views I highly doubt that) but thats not the case everywhere.

I would like to hear some sources that state that homosexuality is a choice. Every credible scientific organization states otherwise as Amaretti has clearly shown. I doubt you will, since every "ex-gay" organization is a thin veil for fundamentalist Christian chrurch brainwashing.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> Tell me what do Homosexuals do for society? Are they needed? No. They're humans beings



...

There are gays working in banks, participating in their activities. There are gays working in industry companies, contributing to their daily activities and making profits, there are gays working in hospitals, saving lives, there are gays arresting robbers and other criminals...

Do I need to go on ?

Gays are as useful as any other human in our Western Societies, where they are happier to live than in countries where religious hatred threatens their very lives. Just because gay men don't get women pregnants, or just because lesbians don't want to use straight intercourse to get babies, it isn't enough to "ban" them from Society, and declare them "useless".


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 22, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> First off the whole black comment was unecessary and yes they are needed.



No, they're not. Just as asians aren't really needed, nor are whites. Colour is a very unnecesary thing. It would all be better if we were just one colour and 'race', since there would be a lot fewer issues of racism in the world. But just because racial differences are not needed does not mean they do not exist or that we should not tolerate them.



> Tell me what do Homosexuals do for society? Are they needed? No.



Aside from the obvious fact that homosexuals are working just like eveyone else, how about go for a good example of one individual?

Alan Turing. He was the man who cracked the enigma code and very much sealed the victory for the allied forces during WWII. Without his help, we might all be speaking German. We all owe our lives to that man. And how was he repaid? He was locked up for being gay and subjected to horrendous medical procedures which eventually drove him to suicide.

What have gays done for society? Well, they've preserved it for you.

And you're talking like you can wipe them off the face of the planet at will. That's never going to happen, so I'll stop humoring this line of idiocy now.



> They're humans beings  who have followed the wrong path.



You didn't even bother to read the links I gave, did you?


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 22, 2007)

Wow I want to see someone try to put Amaretti. He makes alot of good points. Alan Turing maybe if we did that to him earlier every morning kids in school might be saying Hail Hitler! Instead of the Star Spangled Banner...


----------



## Adonis (Feb 22, 2007)

Sound Village Chuunin said:


> Wow I want to see someone try to put Amaretti. He makes alot of good points. Alan Turing maybe if we did that to him erlier every morning kids in school might be saying Hail Hitler! Instead of the Star Spangled Banner...



Too bad C-Dog will ignore every point


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 22, 2007)

Zephos said:
			
		

> Its OBSERVED in nature. End of discussion.



So is cannibalism.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> I don't think you get it C. That means NOTHING. Assuming it goes against nature, and I don't htink it does, nature still does not always equal good and moral.



Completely irrelevant. He was referring to something going against nature, not something that was natural and simply could be wrong.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> yes, a doctor in botany



So you dismiss doctor opinions now?



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> I responded. So don't keep using the argument I don't respond, I haven't adressed you ending post because as I said I ahve not had the time I want to give it.



Wrong thread.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> As for this, ok, lets accept that. But for our society to function, we must believe that free will exists. Otherwise it would fall apart, because of theories like what you stated.



Oooooooh... so free will exists now all of a sudden. I though free will did not exist. After all, that is why homosexuals cannot change who they are and what they do. I thought saying that free will existed was homophobic. But I must thank you for telling the truth. You are right. For our society to function, we must believe that free will exists. I strongly agree with that. To not do so would cause our society to fall apart, due to theories like the one that I stated.

Well the theory that I stated is akin to those used by... the immoral perverts, also known as the gay agenda or the gay mafia. They are the fascists who say that free will does not exist, and that society must change (fall apart) and accept those who cannot change what they were "born as".

So I agree with you here 100% sj2k, which has briefly frightened me to be honest. Did I contradict myself somewhere or use a double standard? Did I spout illogic or make a baseless claim? Hmm, no it looks like I made a perfect argument that you sided with. That's great. That means you are thinking logically now. Good job sj2k. Believe it!



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> But how do we know where to draw the line? I guess we don't know.



No, I know where to draw the line.



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> I, and most MEDICAL doctors, believe sexual orientation is also like that.



Okay, that was a brief glimmer of hope that was quickly snuffed out. Now you're going right back into baseless claims. First of all, you have no proof that most medical doctors feel that way, and second you have no proof that the ones who do feel that way have any reason to do so.



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> I think that is is hilarious that you think that being a vegetarian is wrong. What if it is done for the sake of health and diet, is that wrong because the person is not using the animals as food that "god" gave us?



For the sake of health? Well preserving one's health is natural, so no it would not be incorrect because it would not be unnatural to preserve one's health. I didn't say it was wrong as in being immoral though, I said it was dumb and incorrect. Also, where does this "God" comment come from?



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> You believe that the desire to help others to give to charity is natural for human beings? One need only look at the world to see that the vast majority of humans do not have a natural desire to impartially help others. ... However, what percentage of people give to charity? Very few, so i think it is sufficient to say that desire to give to charity is not natural



Wait, so because you think most people are not charitable it means that being charitable is unnatural? Is that what you are saying?



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> Which leads to a contradiction in your statements you say that unnatural is always unethical? Yet i am pretty sure you are of the christian faith. A virture liking giving to charity is something completely unnatural, most people only care about themselves and those close to them. They really dont have alot of compassion for people on a different continent. So if we follow your logic that unnatural always equals unethical than those who give to charity would be unethical, because they resist their natural self interested behaviour and try to better themselves above the level of our natural animal instincts.



So how is it a contradiction on my part that my argument conflicts with your idiotic view of natural and unnatural?



			
				funkmasterswede said:
			
		

> So if unnatural always equals unethical we should be punishing those immoral people who are able to be selfless.
> 
> So the fact that homosexuality by your definition is unnatural does not make it immoral.



What is my definition of "unnatural"? Please quote me where I told you how I consider something to be unnatural. Never mind. Don't bother. You are ignorant and you don't read, so I will answer this for you. My definition is based on the majority opinion (or rather the one who has the power to take the lives of others) as well as nature and human nature. It is also based on positives and negatives but that will only confuse you I fear, so lets stick to human nature. It is human nature to do that which is right, and it is also human nature to do that which is wrong. But like I said, what is natural does not always define what is right. Now, how can it be human nature to do that which is right AND wrong? Because it is also our nature to make choices and decisions. That is why charity is natural, indifference is natural, and greed is natural.

Your opinion that charity is unnatural based on the theory that most people prefer indifference and some prefer greed is incorrect and illogical.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual?



Yes.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 22, 2007)

Amaretti said:
			
		

> You cannot choose your sexuality.



If we can't choose our sexuality then why is it that people who were gay have chosen to be straight and have romantic heterosexual relationships?



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> You did not choose to be straight, you just are. Gay people do not choose to be gay. They just are.



Right, I did not choose to like blond women over those with black hair. I have the "attracted to blond haired women" gene. I did not choose to find some black women attractive, I was born with the "attracted to some black women" gene. Did I choose to be attracted to women with morals and standards? Noooooo. I was born with the "attracted to morals and standards" gene. Isn't human development a miraculous thing? Before I even knew what morals and standards were, before I even knew what women were let alone black women or blond haired women, I was attracted to them. Wowsers.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> I know you got jipped on brains when you were born, but if it's not too much trouble, try to understand that simple fact. Most people can. Why can't you?



Maybe because it isn't a fact.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Left-handedness is not needed. Disabilities and handicaps are not needed. Blondes are not needed. Blacks aren't needed.
> 
> Do we have any right to snub these people as a result?



No, because what they are is not wrong.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> We're all human beings - yes, even the gays. We're all entitled to be treated fairly and given our due rights.



I most certainly agree. However, treating them fairly means treating them with the same attitude that we would treat ANYONE that we don't like or feel comfortable around. Given our due rights? I agree with that also. However, that means equal rights, not special rights. Believe it!



			
				C-Dog said:
			
		

> First off the whole black comment was unecessary and yes they are needed. Tell me what do Homosexuals do for society? Are they needed? No. They're humans beings who have followed the wrong path.



I get what you're trying to say, but you should have asked, "What does homosexuality do for society?" Saying "homosexuals" targets the people, not the choice. I think you meant that the choice does not help society while the people making the wrong choice do. In that case I agree.



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> You should think twice before advocating that view because it basically amounts to mob rule or might makes right.



But that is the truth about man's law and man's way of life without God. The one who can kill others without getting killed is the one who defines right and wrong. That is the ugly truth about humanity, even in America.



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> By that line of logic, it would be "right" for the Chinese government or the Iranian government to kill and imprison Christians because they do not line up to majority belief in their countries.



You're right. You are 100% right that it means just that according to that logic. We can still consider it to be wrong though, because we have the power to kill them. Without getting killed ourselves? Perhaps. However, not getting killed yourself only accounts for ensuring that your definition of morality is the one that sticks. That's all that means.



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> Christians are a very, very minor group in those countries and the government and majority of the people definitely have the power to kill them. However, that doesn't make it right for those governments to oppress them.



Why is that?



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> Your Christian position might make you in the majority in the USA (though given your extreme views I highly doubt that) but thats not the case everywhere.



I never said it was the case everywhere. I said it was the case in America.



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> I would like to hear some sources that state that homosexuality is a choice. Every credible scientific organization states otherwise as Amaretti has clearly shown.



No, those sources are not credible at all. They are a front of the gay agenda to misinform and brainwash people. They do not base their claims on anything.



			
				hcheng02 said:
			
		

> I doubt you will, since every "ex-gay" organization is a thin veil for fundamentalist Christian chrurch brainwashing.



Well I guess that solves that issue. Neither of us will accept each others sources, except the difference with us is that we will accept the facts while you will still deny them.

In my opinion, this can be solved through common sense.



			
				T4R0K said:
			
		

> Gays are as useful as any other human in our Western Societies, where they are happier to live than in countries where religious hatred threatens their very lives. Just because gay men don't get women pregnants, or just because lesbians don't want to use straight intercourse to get babies, it isn't enough to "ban" them from Society, and declare them "useless".



I agree, but I think the point was that those same people would be just as productive and useful if they had not chosen to be gay. I do not mind that they chose to be gay as long as they keep their private lives private and not involve me in it.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

> I though free will did not exist.



what, have you ever been to the philisophical part of the cafe?  I will give you my favorite quote on it.



> Even if there's no such thing as free will, we have to treat each other as if there were free will in order to live together in society. Because otherwise, every time somebody does something terrible, you can't punish him, because he can't help it, because his genes or his environment or god made him do it, and every time somebody does something good, you can't honor him because he was a puppet, too. If you think that everybody around you is a puppet why bother talking to them at all? Why even try to plan anything or create anything, since everything you plan or create or desire or dream of is just acting out the script your puppeteer built into you.



And see, as much as this scares me, when we leave politics out of it, we can actually get along.  Its kind of disturbing I know, but clearly that means there is hope for one of us...

And in terms of sexual orientatino, this is like the i*c*st thread or the pedo thread.  I don't think you can choose who you are attracted to.  You can however choose who you have sex with.  It is possible to remain abstinent.  I will stand by the fact that you cannot choose who you are attracted to.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 22, 2007)

...hmph. So that's it huh? Okay. When you and Amaretti get tired of kicking the puppy around feel free to address the big dog. Believe it!


----------



## IBU (Feb 22, 2007)

> Unnatural:at variance with what is normal or to be expected



This if for Believe It! The user who has just referred to my views as illogical and idiotic. 

First of all try to keep the name calling out of this and seriously don't question my intelligence especially considering the status of your rep.

So you believe that both greed and charity are natural. First off, how can two things that are opposites also be considered natural. When we look at something being natural. We are looking at what is expected of it. It is natural for a dog to bark, natural for a fish to swim, natural to become angry when someone belittles one's intelligence. Oh wait according to your logic, it is also natural to be happy when someone belittles your intelligence because you have that choice to be happy. Yes I will grant it is natural for humans to make choices but in every situation there is a norm an expectation a natural answer to the given cause. If we continue with the example of charity, it is seen that most people will be indifferent or down right greedy and not give. Thus this has become the expectation, it is expected that people will not be charitable. And according to the definition I just found unnatural is something varying from what is expected and thus charity in our society can be considered to be unnatural.

And anyway most people that choose give to charity do so because it makes them feel good about themselves not out of a desire to help others but a desire to feel better about one's self. And if someone is helped in doing so than it is all good.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 23, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Yeah c-dog, as said, you have said homosexuality is immoral and unatural and wrong, but you have yet to say WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> its not exactly the same.  But it is people being discriminated against for something they can't control.  And I don't understand why people feel like blacks have the ultimate trump card in terms of discrimination anywyas.  Discrimination sucks, it always did, it always has.  Many groups have faced horrible things that nobody should have had to go through.  To say my pain was worse than yours just makes no sense.  My ancestor was a slave, yeah well my ancestor went to a concentration camp, well my ancestor was an aulet who was nuked.  Its all awful, eventually you get to a place where one is not worse than the other.  I personally use the reference to the civil rights movement because that is what this is, another civil rights movement, granted for some different things




I did not say blacks had any ultimate trump card. Jews have been persecuted as well. So have native americans. Look at what Pizarro did to the Inca. What gays go through is in NO WAY comparable. The pain they go thru is nothing compared to what Jews, black, or natives went through. It was worse for them. They ALL trump what gays go through. Did you even read my post? Gays have not experienced any of the things I listed. They only way they are similar is they both want rights. That's it. To say they are similar in any other way is ridiculous.


And who gives a rats ass about rep? It aint putting any money in my pocket.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 23, 2007)

Itanji Kuraisu said:


> I did not say blacks had any ultimate trump card. Jews have been persecuted as well. So have native americans. Look at what Pizarro did to the Inca. What gays go through is in NO WAY comparable. The pain they go thru is nothing compared to what Jews, black, or natives went through. It was worse for them. They ALL trump what gays go through. Did you even read my post? Gays have not experienced any of the things I listed. They only way they are similar is they both want rights. That's it. To say they are similar in any other way is ridiculous.
> .



Gays have experienced plenty of persecution throughout history. One example were the the Nazis who used to round up homosexuals and take them to the death camps. Amaretti mentioned Alan Turing, who was locked up and used as a human guinea pig for being gay. Gays were subjected lynchings and stonings and such. They were a minority who were discriminated against, just like Jews or Blacks.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 23, 2007)

Itanji, what about the people who get killed for being gay.  what about being killed for it?  Gays have, throughout history, been discriminated against as much as others.  At this point, no it is not as bad as it has been.  But homosexuals have been discriminated against, just as almost everyone has.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 23, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Itanji, what about the people who get killed for being gay.  what about being killed for it?  Gays have, throughout history, been discriminated against as much as others.  At this point, no it is not as bad as it has been.  But homosexuals have been discriminated against, just as almost everyone has.



Do you even read my posts? I swear you dont. If you do it is without any understanding. *I NEVER SAID GAYS WERENT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.*But for you to put the struggles of gays on the same level as the struggles of Jews, Blacks and Natives is ridiculous. I see that it's clear the you will not acquiesce that, even though it is fact. Do I need to run it down for you again? Ok.

Gays haven't been denied the right to vote.
There are no gay only or straight only bathrooms.
Gays werent FORCED to eat in the back of the restaurant or ride in the back of the bus.
Gays werent assaulted by police with fire hoses.
There are no gay Jim Crow laws. Gays werent lynched like blacks.
Gays werent made to be slaves.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## hcheng02 (Feb 23, 2007)

Itanji Kuraisu said:


> Do you even read my posts? I swear you dont. If you do it is without any understanding. *I NEVER SAID GAYS WERENT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.*But for you to put the struggles of gays on the same level as the struggles of Jews, Blacks and Natives is ridiculous. I see that it's clear the you will not acquiesce that, even though it is fact. Do I need to run it down for you again? Ok.
> 
> Gays haven't been denied the right to vote.
> There are no gay only or straight only bathrooms.
> ...



Thats because gays could hide more easily within the general populace because their differences weren't as externally obvious. I'm willing to bet if they admitted being gay in public that they would face lynchings and such. And lets not forget the Nazi death camps.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 23, 2007)

hcheng02 said:


> Thats because gays could hide more easily within the general populace because their differences weren't as externally obvious. I'm willing to bet if they admitted being gay in public that they would face lynchings and such. And lets not forget the Nazi death camps.



That shit can't compare with stuff whole groups go through. Tell me when there is a gay slavery, or a gay holocaust.

To compare that is a insult to whole cultures that was wiped out.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 23, 2007)

hcheng02 said:


> Thats because gays could hide more easily within the general populace because their differences weren't as externally obvious.




Thus proving my point. It's not on the same level.


----------



## Sphyer (Feb 23, 2007)

You cant really say gays have suffered mroe than jews and blacks and stuff. They have gone through discrimination but as said above they never had to go through things alot worse than blacks.jews,etc had to. The only thing I can compare them with is the fact that they were discrimated for that.


----------



## T4R0K (Feb 23, 2007)

OK, time for some extreme-thinking (it means, thinking by the absurd to raise some points. Valid or not, that comes after)

Alright, the people disliking gays try to make their point, and it's normal. But they can't stop using harsh and offensive words and arguments. And I think it's a waste of time to give those thoughts to a matter that doesn't really matter.

Why do I say that ? Gays will ALWAYS be a minor part of the population, so the fear that "the world will turn gay if we let them" is irrationnal. Also, why does it hurt a straight person when seeing two gay persons ? Maybe it can be disgusting, OK, like when I saw that really ugly straight couple (but at least they were happy), but their life is none of my business and it's the same for gays. Their lives and not mine. If they're both adults and conscentant, why take offence at them ? So I wonder why care ?

OK, now say you're dislike of them is taking such a big place in your mind, that you have a whole ideology you rely on to dislike them. This feeling is burning YOU and not them because you give them thought when they don't for you. YOU are wasting thoughts and time on them. YOU are not at peace, because you don't like their lifestyle.

I ask, how do you want to feel at peace ? How do you want to not think about gay people anymore and think about issues that matters for real, concrete, solid, down-to-earth reasons ?
- banishement ? That's against human rights (a homophobe cousin had a wild thought of sending them on Mars so they could disappear in one generation. Didn't reply when I told him that lesbians and gays can still have sex to have babies. LOL for confusion)
- therapy ? Gay people are not insane, and forcing people into therapy is against human rights
- extermination ? That's REALLY against human rights and despite PR talks, many homophobes don't deny that idea (even if they may dislike the idea of killing)
- counselling ? Well, if those that don't feel confortable with being gay want to, their problem. But it should not be a "back to straight" brainwashing therapy. Just making them accept themselves first (maybe some are bi, but encountered men first, and feel weird if they start liking a woman)

See ? Anti-gays have to face it, gays will not disappear, and NEITHER will they take over. They will always remain a small portion of the human population, and keep on living gay lives in their homes, but be normal citizens by working, voting and doing stuff. They cannot be "fixed" against their will. 

So what ? You want to keep bitching at them, when they don't bitch at us straights ? You want to give them importance, when they don't give us any ? 
As my mum's husband tells me "The hate consumes the hater, not the hated" (well, as long as the hater just hates and doesn't do something dangerous. I that case, hate consumes the hater still, and kills/hurt the hated)

I ask you again, gay-UNfriendly people : if you can't stand gay people, what would you do about them ? What would make you stop care about them ?


----------



## Vicious ♥ (Feb 25, 2007)

It takes alot more than just talking about their intimacies to disgust me, scat pron can be funny from time to time, it doesn't arouse me though..

EDIT: I like peeing on women.


----------



## uchiha sandsy (Feb 25, 2007)

there is nothing wrong with homosexuals, end of case, anyone who says otherwise should either go to church you God fearing Christian whores or get out of the 19th century


----------



## sj2k (Feb 25, 2007)

Uchiha sandsy is not very forgiving of christians...

and man, its not the 19th century...  or do you mean they are living there and need to join modern times?  I will assume so for now, give you the benifit of the doubt.


----------



## Tsuuga (Feb 25, 2007)

Why is it that I've heard more descriptions of gay sex from homophobes than homosexuals?


----------



## zet1 (Feb 26, 2007)

martryn said:


> Some people are turned off by the thought of butt sex between two guys.  They're entitled to not be ok with it.  If I said that I liked to shit on a chick's face and then lick it up, would you be disgusted?  Same fucking principle.
> 
> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.  I'm not homophobic.  I don't avoid gays.  I've known three or four gay guys personally, and it didn't bother me.  Regular people, with regular lives, sometimes funny stories.  It didn't bother me until they started talking about their private, intimate lives.  Then I'd get disgusted, throw my hands up, and leave the room, but that doesn't mean I dislike individual homosexuals.
> 
> Please, people, be a little understanding here.  It seems everyone is quick to complain about gay rights and how the minority opinion is not being heard, when they're just as quick to turn around and tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves.  How can you promote open mindedness and viciously attack those who aren't afraid to voice the conservative opinion?



The majority of people who are "pro-gay" believe that homosexuality is completely biological, just like your race or the color of your eyes. Therefore, if you have no control over which sex you are attracted to, you should not be condemned\treated differently. That's a reasonable conclusion. 

Those who are anti-gay or at least uncomfortable with the idea believe it is a choice\lifestyle. Therefore, it is OK to dislike the act and even go so far as to ban their activites. They chose to behave in such an abnormal way, so no one has to respect or be tolerant it. 

Nature vs. nurture is at the root of the debate of homosexuality, and sadly, until their is solid evidence that supports one side, no one is going to compromise.


----------



## dragon695 (Feb 26, 2007)

Indignation said:


> That shit can't compare with stuff whole groups go through. Tell me when there is a gay slavery, or a gay holocaust.
> 
> To compare that is a insult to whole cultures that was wiped out.



Funny you should mention the holocaust. It is because of what the Jewish people saw happening to gays and lesbians in the camps that the majority of them have stood with us in our fight to end the hatred. I remember watching the debates on the Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The only holocaust survivor serving in their legislature got up to recount what she saw and it was shocking. I'll never forget it because she wore that day the same yellow Star of David that she wore as a child when she was in the camps. The Jewish members of the US House and Senate have also been steadfast supporters of our battle against bigotry. This isn't to say that the black hatters are kosher with us, but most conservative/reform Jews are. So before you go making asinine remarks, educate yourself.


----------



## Enigma Hector (Feb 26, 2007)

Emosauce said:


> That's fine. I just hate people who think every single gay person is a clone of Jack from Will and Grace.



_LMFAO! that show was/is the shit, but I agree sometimes I want my gay friends to kindly stop with the "OMFG! man meat! must FUK!" but hey... Im there friends so I must accept the good and the bad sometimes._


----------



## Toby (Feb 26, 2007)

I don't really mind it more than any other couple making out. In return I can be disgusting with my girlfriend in public. 

Too bad if that disgusts you. You don't have to look.


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 26, 2007)

Why does everyone think that just because someones gay all they think about is sex. Seriously whenever theres a gay guy in the vicinity its the same crap, are you horny? Are you getting turned on? I mean Wtf its not as if straight men dont think about sex!!


----------



## Ennoea (Feb 26, 2007)

P.s my biggest problem is that most straight men dont have a problem with Lesbians making out but Gay men are abominations?


----------



## Zabuzalives (Feb 26, 2007)

CrimemasterGogo said:


> P.s my biggest problem is that most straight men dont have a problem with Lesbians making out but Gay men are abominations?



And why oh why would that be??? 
Because as we are straight we are turned on by woman and turned off by other guys....perhaps? Why is that so strange and why is that seen as such a big deal? 

Guy-guy    
Girl-Guy  Wow shes fine, damn that asshole, why cant that be me, why is he taking so much of the screen? I dont want to see him, focus on the girl.
Girl-girl


----------



## sj2k (Feb 26, 2007)

zbuza, its fine if a guy is turned on by girl girl.  But some people honestly see guy guy as morally wrong, but not girl girl simply because they find it hot.  That is just hypocritical.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 27, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Itanji, what time period are we talking about?  I am talking about a huge scope of time, going back to the middle ages, you seem to only be talking about america.  If we ONLY talk about america, yeah you are right its not the same.  But why are you allowed to go all the way back to slavery, its not recent.  You seem just to be picking time periods that help you.
> 
> And what are you talking about with the holocaust?  Yeah, the jews were the biggest victims, and hitler hated the jews ALOT, but if you were homosexual you were killed off too.  You got the same treatment as jews if not worse.
> So, I am not trying to say gays were slaves.  I am trying to say they have been killed, harrasad, imprisoned, fired and been denied basic civil rights for their sexual orientation.  So don't keep on giving me this BS that they haven't had it rough.
> ...




It's official. Your ass cant read, or you just choose to read what you want. For the 500th time, *I NEVER SAID GAYS WEREN"T DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!* Why cant you get that thru your thick ass skull?  All I have said in this thread is that for someone to compare the plight of gays to the plight of blacks is a freaking moron who doesnt know their ass from a hole in the ground. (Pointing at you.) Im talking about things that happened less than *50* years ago. Jim Crow was around less than 50 years ago. You dont have a damn clue at all. They really need to teach black history in schools b/c some of the whites need it more the blacks do b/c a lot of whites truly have NO clue at all. These are the same people that claim racism is dead in america, when I know what I experience walking around in this skin everyday. They only person forcing ignorance on others is you. and since you want to be the board rules nazi, stay on topic and stop mixing up posts on this thread with posts on the gay marriage thread on the debate board.


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 27, 2007)

Itanji Kuraisu said:


> It's official. Your ass cant read, or you just choose to read what you want. For the 500th time, *I NEVER SAID GAYS WEREN"T DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!* Why cant you get that thru your thick ass skull?  All I have said in this thread is that for someone to compare the plight of gays to the plight of blacks is a freaking moron who doesnt know their ass from a hole in the ground. (Pointing at you.) Im talking about things that happened less than *50* years ago. Jim Crow was around less than 50 years ago. You dont have a damn clue at all. They really need to teach black history in schools b/c some of the whites need it more the blacks do b/c a lot of whites truly have NO clue at all. These are the same people that claim racism is dead in america, when I know what I experience walking around in this skin everyday. They only person forcing ignorance on others is you. and since you want to be the board rules nazi, stay on topic and stop mixing up posts on this thread with posts on the gay marriage thread on the debate board.



Seriously calm the fuck down. That kind of belligerent tantrum is completely unnecessary. Sj2k was civil to you, so the least you could do is show equal consideration rather than accusing him of ignorance which, as far as I can see, he has not shown. On the other hand, you have misconstrued the reason why the comparison between blacks and gays was drawn, and you're still failing to understand it, despite the fact that is was explained to you several times.

No one is comparing the historical background of suffering blacks and gays have suffered. You are the one who made it about that. The comparison was about the _reason_ why blacks and gays suffer discrimination. Blacks for being black, gays for being gay. For being who they are, they are both judged. It is viewed as unnacceptable in polite society to discriminate against blacks, so why is it acceptable to do it to gays?

That is the reason for the comparison. Nothing more. History does not come into it. The comparison can be made with women if you like, since women also suffer prejudice and discrimination for being female alone.

If you respond, at least try to remain civil.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 27, 2007)

Whatever dude. I didnt know you can infer tone from typed text. I am being civil. Im just tired of explaining the same shit 5 times, when others that have read this tread have completely understood what I am saying. He has put words into my mouth three times. Also, that was not the comparison. You have it worng as well. I am right in my argument, you idiots are the ones failing to understand. It is not the same. The Gay rights movement is in no way similar to the civil rights struggle. If anything is the same between the two is that both movements wanted something they didnt have. That should be able to go with out saying, but I guess it cant when dealing with idiots. I simply used history to illustrate my point. People trying to be sooo smart but are really dumb as a box of rocks. I see that you fools are masters of stating the obvious.

Toast.


----------



## Cal (Feb 27, 2007)

i dislike ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Tentsuku (Feb 27, 2007)

Morals are Subjective,  however,  if you're literally "disgusted" by acts of love from two consenting adults...  it only shows your lack of maturity,  and inherent ignorance.

I have numerous homosexual friends,  whilst,  as a heterosexual male I don't share the same views of attraction as they do...  I certainly understand why they do;  to me,  I judge it no differently than a Heterosexual relationship.

You don't have to share the same views,  Hell,  I could never imagine myself having an affectionate relationship with a person of the same gender...  that doesn't mean I'm "disgusted" by the thought of other people who ARE.

I see no reason to be "disgusted" by the thought of two,  consenting adults being in love.

Also,  to even compare Homosexuality to a Fetish is proof enough of your borderline delusional train of thought.

*TL;DR* - You don't have to agree with Homosexuality,  but being "disgusted" by it makes you childish.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 27, 2007)

Itanji, you amuse me.

They are both discriminated against, and both for reasons that are beyond their control, so it is a reasonable comparison.  I pointed out the struggles not because they have suffered more than blacks, though as I said I think it is childish to say I have suffered more than you, suffering is horrible either way, but becuase I figured the only reason you could not see the comparison would because you did nor realize what they had gone through.  I treated you as a rational human being.  However, that appears to have been a mistake.

Do you know why I continue to show you the history, becuase you make statments like this, and I am quoting you directly



> The Gay rights movement is in *no way* similar to the civil rights struggle



These display your ignorance.

However, while Believe it may not have been to see logic, at least he was civil :disgust


----------



## Amaretti (Feb 27, 2007)

Itanji Kuraisu said:


> Whatever dude. I didnt know you can infer tone from typed text. I am being civil.



This is what you call civil?



> Why cant you get that thru your thick ass skull?





> a freaking moron who doesnt know their ass from a hole in the ground. (Pointing at you.)





> b/c some of the whites need it more the blacks do b/c a lot of whites truly have NO clue at all



Of course you can infer a tone from text when you're belligerently insulting someone just for contradicting you.

And I've explained the reasoning behind the comparison twice now, and yet you still don't get it. Judging by your rep bar, I can see that I'm wasting my time with you. You cant be civil, you can't grasp a simple comparison, and you can't use paragraphs. If we're fools, I wonder what that makes you?


----------



## uchiha sandsy (Feb 27, 2007)

I dont see why people have a proble with gays or lesbians, we are in the 21st century now, you can blow your candle out and switch your light on


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 27, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Itanji, you amuse me.
> 
> They are both discriminated against, and both for reasons that are beyond their control, so it is a reasonable comparison.  I pointed out the struggles not because they have suffered more than blacks, though as I said I think it is childish to say I have suffered more than you, suffering is horrible either way, but becuase I figured the only reason you could not see the comparison would because you did nor realize what they had gone through.  I treated you as a rational human being.  However, that appears to have been a mistake.
> 
> ...



He's right. Gay people could hide their gayness, for lack of a better word. 

Black people couldn't hide who they were. There is no comparison


----------



## zet1 (Feb 27, 2007)

Off-topic: Black homophobes and racist homosexuals = people need to learn to empathize with one another more. Let's get off of this black vs gay subject, it's kind of upsetting.

I may not agree on homosexuality being a completely innate trait, but I firmly believe they have a right to marry whoever they want. The only real argument against it is religious based, and that is a violation of the First Amendment. What other arguement is there? The sanctity of marriage?


----------



## sj2k (Feb 27, 2007)

> He's right. Gay people could hide their gayness, for lack of a better word.
> 
> Black people couldn't hide who they were. There is no comparison



do you guys know what a comparison is?!?!?!

Nowhere does it say that it is the same.  People compare the persecution of the jews to that of the blacks all the time, and nobody as a problem.  That is because nobody said its the SAME, its the same principal, and is a valid COMPARISON.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 27, 2007)

Mystic8516 said:


> In anycase if people arent approving of gay people then thats ok and it shouldent be shoved down there throats. I also think they have that right to not support it as long as they dont go all homophobic and treat them like there not human. Dislike the prefernce not the person ^^.



WTF since when were homos humans.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 27, 2007)

> WTF since when were homos humans.



you know, it is hard to respect your opinion when you say things like this...


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Feb 28, 2007)

sj2k said:


> do you guys know what a comparison is?!?!?!
> 
> Nowhere does it say that it is the same.  People compare the persecution of the jews to that of the blacks all the time, and nobody as a problem.  That is because nobody said its the SAME, its the same principal, and is a valid COMPARISON.



Im glad you said that. Here comes the gopher ball, getting my Barry Bonds swing ready... 

You are correct. The persecution of Blacks and Jews are VERY similar. I've even stated that in previous posts. I have no problem with that comparison.
The problem is when persecution of gays is compared to that of Blacks and Jews. There is no comparison. Gays have in NO way suffered like blacks and jews have thru history. If you cant understand that, then there is no hope for you or your ilk.

HOME RUN! #756 Baby!

Peace bitches!


----------



## Pein (Feb 28, 2007)

some people dont like gays gasp!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sj2k (Feb 28, 2007)

You know, I think you want to win by cheating itanji 

Getting the albert pujols swing ready, in his last season,

And the point of a compairson is ITS NOT THE SAME THING.  if you can't see from my examples that gays have suffered, and alot, though not in the same ways all the time, throughout history, you have no hope.  It is a 100% valid example.  You don't see jews saying its not a valid comparison do you?  Thats because we know it is valid.

And pujols breaks the previously unbreakable barrier by breaking A-rods record, with homerun #922!


----------



## Fenix (Feb 28, 2007)

martryn said:


> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.



The problem is, on the other side of that...some of the ...for the lack of better word, haters don't know the difference. They think that because they don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, they hate the individuals as well.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 28, 2007)

April Vacation said:


> The problem is, on the other side of that...some of the ...for the lack of better word, haters don't know the difference. They think that because they don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, they hate the individuals as well.



I agree, because people aren't fully aware of the sexual preference they just dislike it all together rather than try to come to an understanding with it.


----------



## Jessie (Feb 28, 2007)

I agree totally, I have no problem with Homo's or lez's as long as they don't start thrusting their tongues down each others throats, or talking about their sex lives wile I'm present.

In fact I don't like PDA or intimate talk from anyone, unless its brought up as a general conversation (not detailed).


----------



## Tsuuga (Feb 28, 2007)

Indignation said:


> He's right. Gay people could hide their gayness, for lack of a better word.
> 
> Black people couldn't hide who they were. There is no comparison



Hooray for repressive societies!


----------



## sj2k (Feb 28, 2007)

> The problem is, on the other side of that...some of the ...for the lack of better word, haters don't know the difference. They think that because they don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, they hate the individuals as well.



wait.  There is a difference between not feeling comfortable with homosexuality and hating it.

Can you honestly hate black people but not a black person?

This is not some simple thing like wearing the color red, it is a part of who you are, which you cannot change, that people are hating.


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 1, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Can you honestly hate black people but not a black person?



Hehehe, that reminds me of the lyrics of a song that is funny and popular right now in France. The rapper is a black guy whose family moved to live in a village. I think the father is a doctor, and wanted to live in the french countryside. And they were the only black family in a 100km radius, I think. 

He quotes a white friend of his in the song *imagine redneck accent* :
"I don't like them, black people, but you, I like you, even though you're black"


----------



## Taciturnity (Mar 1, 2007)

Personally I'm not very fond of the flamboyant, prissy, effeminate gay guys that flaunt their sexuality. 

Yeah, it's a bit of a turn-off. I like my men manly and raging with virility, with the hairiest of chests and the shaggiest of beards.


----------



## Blargal (Mar 1, 2007)

Ok This thread is absolutely ridiculous, people are trying to bring morals and religion into this, both of which are opinion driven and vary between person to person and try to base that on the grounds of their argument, just absolutely ridiculous.

My opinion about homosexuality is simple, I don't give a damn, I don't care that there are men have sex with other men or women with women, why don't I care? Because it DOES NOT effect me in anyway, they are not preaching gayness, its not some massive impact on your life nor is it some sort of thorn in your side. You people that are so against it don't even know why you are against it!

One thing I can't figure out is why do you people care that they are gay? Are they having sex on your door step on something, why do you people care so much? You are disgusted by it and feel the need to preach, degrade and insult others who don't share the same opinion as you, yet it still no matter what gay people do, does not effect you at all! Why concern yourself with the choice of others I mean damn seriously, you people get so wrapped up in this shit that in the end you anti-gay hate preaching people probably know more about gay people than they do themselves.

Regardless if I don't care about gay people or what they do, can someone at least answer my question since it truly does boggle my mind, why do you care that there are gay people, does this some how effect your way of life? I'll give someone rep++ (which is just another way for epeen+++) for a sensible and reasonable answer to that.


----------



## Silver Reflection (Mar 1, 2007)

April Vacation said:


> The problem is, on the other side of that...some of the ...for the lack of better word, haters don't know the difference. They think that because they don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, they hate the individuals as well.



Exactly.People need to realize that homosexuals aren't evil,and they won't catch anything from being around them.Why can't people just respect the fact that they're being true to themselves in the face of adversidy and move on? And why should it even matter if a person is gay or straight?We're all humans.


----------



## s0id3 (Mar 1, 2007)

martryn said:


> Some people are turned off by the thought of butt sex between two guys.  They're entitled to not be ok with it.  If I said that I liked to shit on a chick's face and then lick it up, would you be disgusted?  Same fucking principle.
> 
> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.  I'm not homophobic.  I don't avoid gays.  I've known three or four gay guys personally, and it didn't bother me.  Regular people, with regular lives, sometimes funny stories.  It didn't bother me until they started talking about their private, intimate lives.  Then I'd get disgusted, throw my hands up, and leave the room, but that doesn't mean I dislike individual homosexuals.
> 
> Please, people, be a little understanding here.  It seems everyone is quick to complain about gay rights and how the minority opinion is not being heard, when they're just as quick to turn around and tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves.  How can you promote open mindedness and viciously attack those who aren't afraid to voice the conservative opinion?



well i do agree with you...and in all honesty this and many other such subjects as religions,race etc somewhat fall into the same argument you are presenting.
America has turned from the land of the free(free speech/opinions etc) to oh noz! Must be 100% politically correct or else i offend someone and am called a "____Hater"/racist


----------



## Toby (Mar 1, 2007)

Lol, this thread seems to have lost its meaning - or rather what I interpreted it as. Listen, Martryn, it is agiven that some people find it off-putting that other sexual orientations and likes or dislikes disgust you. But I think it is a bit extensive to justify the hate of "gays", which I doubt you do - but some people are using this thread for that, and I just can't condone with that. It is taking the personal liberty argument and perverting it into a "my rights are so extensive that I can intrude on yours". 

For those who just won't address the hypocrit-argument by Sj2k, I seriously dislike the fact that you keep posting here. Seriously, it is not a dislike I reserve for just you because you are opposed to homosexuality, but the fact that you choose to not address the argument or try to understand its validity. Your actions are ruining the entire discussion and it would not hurt you at all to try understanding that this is a thread for justifying opinions and perspectives which have a sense of rationality to them.


----------



## Fenix (Mar 1, 2007)

sj2k said:


> wait.  There is a difference between not feeling comfortable with homosexuality and hating it.
> 
> Can you honestly hate black people but not a black person?
> 
> This is not some simple thing like wearing the color red, it is a part of who you are, which you cannot change, that people are hating.



Wtf are you talking about? Are you implying every single black person act the same way?

You seem to fail to understand the word hate at all

Get your act together to actually write something that has meaning, or please just go donate all your property and disappear from this world.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 1, 2007)

> Wtf are you talking about? Are you implying every single black person act the same way?
> 
> You seem to fail to understand the word hate at all
> 
> Get your act together to actually write something that has meaning, or please just go donate all your property and disappear from this world.



WTF are you talking about, do you thinkt that every single homosexual person acts the same way.

Both people have something inherint about them they cannot change, and people are hating that inherient quality that cannot be changed.  That is what we call a comparison

Sometiems I wonder why I try...


----------



## Fenix (Mar 1, 2007)

sj2k said:


> WTF are you talking about, do you thinkt that every single homosexual person acts the same way.
> 
> Both people have something inherint about them they cannot change, and people are hating that inherient quality that cannot be changed.  That is what we call a comparison
> 
> Sometiems I wonder why I try...



Oh, and may I ask, what is "inherient" (lol) about black people? 

I hope you understand enough history to know that the Europeans first exploited blacks not because of the color of their skin. So don't give me some stupid color related crap.


----------



## zet1 (Mar 2, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Both people have something inherint about them they cannot change, and people are hating that inherient quality that cannot be changed. That is what we call a comparison



The problem is that many people who are against homosexuality do not believe it is a biological trait.


----------



## Toby (Mar 2, 2007)

As regards rep being passed around:



Show yourself.



April Vacation said:


> Wtf are you talking about? Are you implying every single black person act the same way?



Is that you implying that all homosexuals have the same level of sexual encounters which Martryn described as distasteful? 



April Vacation said:


> You seem to fail to understand the word hate at all



Do not make a single comment on a person's grammar when this is your way of stating the observation here rephrased as "you seem to have failed at understanding the word hate". 



April Vacation said:


> Get your act together to actually write something that has meaning, or please just go donate all your property and disappear from this world.



If you state an example of how you think he is incorrect then for the correction to be applicable it is a mutual requirement. Hence, I guess that you didn't read the entire discussion going on here or that you've somehow not read his other posts. That is the point about the counter-argument regarding your later comments on grammar.


----------



## zet1 (Mar 2, 2007)

neg repping toby_christ is like neg repping...ghandi.  he has to be the most mild-mannered and level-headed poster in the debate forums. for shame!!!


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 2, 2007)

zet said:


> The problem is that many people who are against homosexuality do not believe it is a biological trait.



And those people really need to educate themselves on the extensive research and study that has been made into homosexuality. When someone says 'it's a choice', you know instantly that they have no idea what they're talking about and they've made no effort to research it in the slightest.

If people got off their arses and tried to put some effort into forming their opinions rather than basing them off whatever they happened to hear first, we'd be a lot closer to utopia than we are now.

And while everyone's too busy with the 'OH NOES you can't compare black with gays!' they still have yet to actually confront the point the comparison was making, which was this:

Racism is unacceptable, because it is fear and hatred of someone who is inately different from you. (Blacks being the obvious example as they are most frequently associated with being the victims of racism in western white society, but it really doesn't matter. Substitute 'black' for 'asian' or 'arab' and it's the same point. Skin colour, or any other kind of inate trait that sets you apart from other races, is no where near enough justification for hate and fear.)

Homophobia, however, is supposed to be acceptable, according to some people in this thead, even though homosexuality is as inate and unchangeable as skin colour. Homophobia, like racism, is yet again another fear of what is different. And if one is unacceptable, why is the other one ok?

Now can we stop delving into black history? It's way OT and it has nothing to do with the point the comparison was originally about.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Show yourself.



Probably Itanji. He's neg-repped several people including me, but obviously still hasn't figured out that his own red rep line renders his negging futile.


----------



## zet1 (Mar 2, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> When someone says 'it's a choice', you know instantly that they have no idea what they're talking about and they've made no effort to research it in the slightest.


Agreed, although my stance on homosexuality being a purely biological trait has swayed. Currently there is no scientific consensus on how genetics\biology infuences sexual orientation. It's more complicated than a 'gay gene' and probably involves multiple factors including the enviornment. Where do you get your research from? I got mine from Wiki and one or two other articles that I found from searching.


----------



## Silver Reflection (Mar 2, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> And those people really need to educate themselves on the extensive research and study that has been made into homosexuality. When someone says 'it's a choice', you know instantly that they have no idea what they're talking about and they've made no effort to research it in the slightest.
> 
> If people got off their arses and tried to put some effort into forming their opinions rather than basing them off whatever they happened to hear first, we'd be a lot closer to utopia than we are now.
> 
> ...



Exactly.People are afraid of those who are different.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 2, 2007)

> Oh, and may I ask, what is "inherient" (lol) about black people?



and what, lol, do you think people hold against black people now?

Yeah, imperialism struck everywhere.  And people didn't do it because of skin color.  But that was the justification.  And eventually the exuse, to alot people, became more than that.  It became the truth.

If you don't even understand that...

And yeah, itanji is the neg repper


----------



## Toby (Mar 2, 2007)

I suppose I wouldn't be as liberal as I say I am if I didn't add that somebody anonymously gave me positive rep for being civil. Thank you, but I do prefer to know who gives me reputation. It makes friends' networks so much stronger. 

An inherent thing about black people? Isn't that obvious? Being black is inherent, and yes, that is the true meaning of the word as it actually refers to the phenotype which has been confirmed as genetic material: An inherent quality manifested in physical being.

In the case of homosexuals that would be the being of homosexuality, and bisexuality for bisexuals as heterosexuality for heterosexuals.

What Martryn tried to point out is that those who aren't fine with it don't need to see something they find off-putting in their face, and it is their right because it is genuine. What truth there is about the prejudice against gays is a different question entirely.


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Mar 2, 2007)

homosexuals must not touch me


ask urselves this, would u let 2 gay/lesbian couple baby sit your son or daughter?


----------



## Shiron (Mar 2, 2007)

~Kaio-Cam~ said:


> ask urselves this, would u let 2 gay/lesbian couple baby sit your son or daughter?


Depends; I'd have the exact same qualifications for them for babysitting my children as I would anyone else. Namely, being responsible and not being a murderer/p*d*p****/ect. or having commited any other such violation of the law. As long as they're responsible, I don't see why not.


----------



## zet1 (Mar 2, 2007)

**Reluctantly raises hand to admit he forgot to include name in rep message**


----------



## Toby (Mar 2, 2007)

~Kaio-Cam~: Tell me now, what (presumably) bad thing on earth would possess homosexuals/lesbians when looking after a child which would not possess heterosexuals? 

Are you afraid they'd tell the child about how they, as homosexuals, are viewed as scum by the most peaceful religions on earth?

EDIT: Zomg, zet! How could you?


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Mar 2, 2007)

ok, let them babysit ur children see if i care.


----------



## simpleandclean01 (Mar 2, 2007)

I'm not okay with homosexuality at all. It's wrong. But i don't hate, bash, disrespect, nor see gays as anything below human. I have no right. But i am entitled to my opinion, as you said.


----------



## Fenix (Mar 3, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> As regards rep being passed around:
> 
> 
> 
> Show yourself.



Huh, I can't give out reps. Try repping me. Why include this in a post where you're replying to my post? Way to give the impressionable kids the wrong idea



> Is that you implying that all homosexuals have the same level of sexual encounters which Martryn described as distasteful?



What? Did you even see who I was replying to ? 



> Do not make a single comment on a person's grammar when this is your way of stating the observation here rephrased as "you seem to have failed at understanding the word hate".



* GRAMMAR * ? That had nothing to do with grammar. How can that be about grammar? I'm very very surprised. Do you not have the basic capacity to read something slightly beyond its literal means? 



> If you state an example of how you think he is incorrect then for the correction to be applicable it is a mutual requirement. Hence, I guess that you didn't read the entire discussion going on here or that you've somehow not read his other posts. That is the point about the counter-argument regarding your later comments on grammar.



Oh jeez, the more I read you post the more I think you are either extremely tired, drunk or you made a mistake of thinking i was replying to someone else and you decided to come to his defense for no reason.




sj2k said:


> and what, lol, do you think people hold against black people now?
> 
> Yeah, imperialism struck everywhere.  And people didn't do it because of skin color.  But that was the justification.  And eventually the exuse, to alot people, became more than that.  It became the truth.
> 
> ...



holy crap. it looks like you already forgot what about what I was replying to. i guess there's no point trying to say anything to you if you can't even keep a track of what's going on


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 3, 2007)

April Vacation said:


> Huh, I can't give out reps. Try repping me. Why include this in a post where you're replying to my post? Way to give the impressionable kids the wrong idea



What, so people aren't allowed to address more than one person in their post now? What was he supposed to do? Double-post? That's against the rules.



			
				simpleandclean01 said:
			
		

> I'm not okay with homosexuality at all. It's wrong. But i don't hate, bash, disrespect, nor see gays as anything below human. I have no right. But i am entitled to my opinion, as you said.



Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you hold a prejuduced opinion don't expect to be respected for it.


----------



## Toby (Mar 3, 2007)

April Vacation: Why are you posting in response to my posts without actually addressing the meaning of the post? Do you only read the content and choose to not understand it?

Please, indulge me. Why do you enter a discussion you cannot further partake in, or even worse; knowing that you cannot partake in it?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 3, 2007)

> Huh, I can't give out reps. Try repping me. Why include this in a post where you're replying to my post? Way to give the impressionable kids the wrong idea



That is why he said show yourself, instead of accusing you.  I for one never thought it was you, that never crossed my mind.  If you gave out negs for that kind of stuff I would have had one long ago, lol.  Nah, it was most likely itanji.

Also, why is it that what I said makes sense to everyone else.  Something was said, so you respond to it.  Which menas you said something, so I responded to it.  How does that not make sense?  Or are you going to say that I can't keep track of a conversation again...  You do realize you can have more than one track of conversation going right?

But if you bring up something in a discussion, it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact expected, for someone to respond to it.  I don't understand what is the problem here.

And toby yes, I do think that april is not understanding you.  For what reason, I will not guess, but bottom line is you two are clearly not connecting.  Then again, it seems like nobody is connecting with april...

And, on a totally off topic note, april, whether it be grammer or soemthing else, as long as you can understand the argument, then that is enough.  I have found through my experience, and of course there may be exceptions, that the only time it is approriate to point out that kind of thing is when somebody does not speak english as a first language, and they may have accidently said something they did not mean without realizing it.  But that is purely about understanding what they meant, that is all.


----------



## Fall3n123 (Mar 3, 2007)

*I see...*

At first, I didn't want to have anything to do with gay people, but now, I'm more open with being their friend. I hate* homosexuality*, but I don't hate the person doing it. I'm perfectly fine with them, I even have a gay friend, but I just think what they do is disqusting.

Personally, I can't stand it when people say that gay people are just showing their "love" or "they're not doing anyone harm". Even though it's their personal life and business, it's a carnal desire and it goes against nature.

Now, someone might ask why is it a carnal desire and it goes against nature? Well, for the nature part, I know it may be a simple answer, but look at how the way a female and male are made. And for the carnal part, it's worldly and what some "people" see as ok. I also think it's normal for someone to think homosexuality is disgusting. It just isn't right in my opinion.


----------



## Fenix (Mar 3, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> April Vacation: Why are you posting in response to my posts without actually addressing the meaning of the post? Do you only read the content and choose to not understand it?



Why do you reply to a post with nothing but pretentious ideals? Why not lead by example after you have selfishly dictated that someone did not reply properly? Thanks eh? Why not explain this little line 





> "Is that you implying that all homosexuals have the same level of sexual encounters which Martryn described as distasteful?"


 when my post had nothing to do with it? 



> Please, indulge me. Why do you enter a discussion you cannot further partake in, or even worse; knowing that you cannot partake in it?



Oh, I was questioning sj2k on what he was trying to say about blacks. Before you jumped in out of nowhere and decided to preach things you don't even follow yourself. 

sj2k, let me address a post you made earlier before you saw your little light in toby



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> and what, lol, do you think people hold against black people now?
> 
> Yeah, imperialism struck everywhere. And people didn't do it because of skin color. But that was the justification. And eventually the exuse, to alot people, became more than that. It became the truth.



People hold things against black people because of the stereotypes the color of their skin represent. As cliche as it sounds, someone can learn to overcome their prejudice if when they see that not all blacks, or anyone for that matter, fit the stereotypes that the pop culture today has imposed on most people. 

On the other hand, someone who detest homosexuality who also happens to hate homosexuals will not get over that fact because they hate the mere idea of people engaging in sexual activities with the same sex. 

I brought up the point that some people can dislike homosexuality but still be respectful towards the people. Which you called BS on and brought up the issue with blacks. 



			
				sj2k said:
			
		

> WTF are you talking about, do you thinkt that every single homosexual person acts the same way.
> 
> Both people have something inherint about them they cannot change, and people are hating that inherient quality that cannot be changed.



I am pointing out that the only "inherent" thing about blacks, the color of their skin, is irrelevant. It's the ideals associated with it. Someone can potentially change the prejudice of others by not behaving the way stereotypes portray them to be. Or are you telling me stereotypes are 100% right now? 

You tried to put blacks and homosexuals in the same boat when it comes to prejudice. I'm saying that you're damn wrong for doing so.

Dodging issues and misfiring criticism is all you been doing in this thread


----------



## Toby (Mar 3, 2007)

April Vacation: My counter, as has been accused of a defense for Sj2k, was to point out how what you wrote could be misunderstood just as Sj2k's post could too. Rather than being so critical towards it, I reckoned you would pick it up when it resurfaces in the third point where it was discussed. Obviously you didn't, but that is not criticism of you nor the argument, just that you made a comment about grammar and would not be consistent with it. If you like discussing you'll understand the value of that lesson.

Second, the post which ticked you off was in response to yours in which you requested Sj2k to state one trait which was *inherent* for black people. Well, I did, and I did so by, again, showing how your post could me wrongly interpreted. And by asking you what you're stance on acceptance of homosexuality was is entirely appropriate and actually the only on-topic remark I made: It is what this thread is about.

And no, I won't stand for you calling my points pretentious ideas and leaving it at that. You will, if you're here for a discussion, that is, answer to my arguments just as much as Sj2k's and everyone else's. Because this is a forum. Hang around long enough and you'll notice how people tend to disagree and talk about things and learning that a preconception of universal truth is in fact false in all topics here, with the exception of the mathematics debates we've had earlier.

See that? It's called consistency.


----------



## The Internet (Mar 3, 2007)

~Kaio-Cam~ said:


> homosexuals must not touch me
> 
> 
> ask urselves this, would u let 2 gay/lesbian couple baby sit your son or daughter?



If I knew them before hand.....Yeah.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 3, 2007)

> I brought up the point that some people can dislike homosexuality but still be respectful towards the people. Which you called BS on and brought up the issue with blacks.



actually, perhpaps it is possible.  I just pointed out it is the same thing with blacks.



> I am pointing out that the only "inherent" thing about blacks, the color of their skin, is irrelevant.



And I am pointing out that the only things inherent about homosexuals, who they have sex with, is just a irrelevant, or relevant, as the color of someones skin.



> Dodging issues and misfiring criticism is all you been doing in this thread



If I ahve dodged an issue, and I really don't think I have, please point it out to me.  In fact, when I adress what you say, you seem to not like that.  And now that I appernently have not adressed something you ahve said, you also dont' like that.  I think the only way you are going to be happy is when I simply agree with you.  Which isn't going to happen.

You are trying to justify prejudice.  If you want to do so, fine, but at least be consistent about it.  If you can hate homosexuality, then it is just as valid as hating judaism, or hating hispanics.


----------



## Denimjo (Mar 3, 2007)

I find the comparison of being black and being homosexual to be rather silly. Homosexuality is (in my view) a behavior that some people dislike (for whatever reasons), whereas being black (or hispanic or whatnot) is simply a different pigmentation of the skin and doesn't affect one's behavior at all (the environment one is raised in affects that, but I digress). It's not really the same thing, even though both groups of people (which are not mutually exclusive, by the way) have suffered from oppression, hatred and intolerance.

I suppose it stems from whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a _choice _or not. I personally believe that one is born that way and one simply doesn't "choose" to be homosexual; however, I think there are some people out there who believe that homosexuals are just trying to piss heterosexuals off with their behavior (which is utterly ludicrous) and that it's a conscious decision they make to be attracted to the same sex as them. This may be the root cause of a lot of tension between people.


----------



## Gaara (Mar 3, 2007)

Fall3n123 said:


> At first, I didn't want to have anything to do with gay people, but now, I'm more open with being their friend. I hate* homosexuality*, but I don't hate the person doing it. I'm perfectly fine with them, I even have a gay friend, but I just think what they do is disqusting.
> 
> Personally, I can't stand it when people say that gay people are just showing their "love" or "they're not doing anyone harm". Even though it's their personal life and business, it's a carnal desire and it goes against nature.
> 
> Now, someone might ask why is it a carnal desire and it goes against nature? Well, for the nature part, I know it may be a simple answer, but look at how the way a female and male are made. And for the carnal part, it's worldly and what some "people" see as ok. I also think it's normal for someone to think homosexuality is disgusting. It just isn't right in my opinion.



I agree with you completely here. Well put, thought.

I don't hate people who are gay...I just think its wrong that people are like that. I am not a homophobe, nor do I hate these people. I in fact know people that are gay/bi and am friends with them.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 3, 2007)

Self controll is when you are fed up with the people on the board, and you delete your scathing reply and instead put this.


----------



## Kisame. (Mar 3, 2007)

yeah im not okay with homosexuality at all and Im a homophobe.

Something about seeing gay ppl makes me innately want to smash there faces in.... But I hide these urges go on with life.


----------



## The Internet (Mar 3, 2007)

Kisame said:


> yeah im not okay with homosexuality at all and Im a homophobe.
> 
> Something about seeing gay ppl makes me innately want to smash there faces in.... But I hide these urges go on with life.



There's two major diffrences between us with this statement.

Replace gay people with idiots, and hiding to not hiding.

Regardless, last I checked I don't see gay men and women all over the streets and parks fucking each other.

Lousiana must be a silly place.


----------



## Kisame. (Mar 3, 2007)

There's two major diffrences between us with this statement.



> Replace gay people with idiots, and hiding to not hiding.
> 
> Regardless, last I checked I don't see gay men and women all over the streets and parks fucking each other.
> 
> Lousiana must be a silly place.



it is we got some things called crawfish


----------



## sj2k (Mar 3, 2007)

I can't tell if you are seriouse or not kisame, I don't think so.

And I caught crawfish in a stream once, it was fun.


----------



## mister_manji (Mar 4, 2007)

we also have crawfish here in Oregon.


----------



## RPG_Fan04 (Mar 4, 2007)

martryn said:


> Some people are turned off by the thought of butt sex between two guys.  They're entitled to not be ok with it.  If I said that I liked to shit on a chick's face and then lick it up, would you be disgusted?  Same fucking principle.
> 
> I'm tired of people equating a hate for homosexuality with a hate for homosexuals.  I'm not homophobic.  I don't avoid gays.  I've known three or four gay guys personally, and it didn't bother me.  Regular people, with regular lives, sometimes funny stories.  It didn't bother me until they started talking about their private, intimate lives.  Then I'd get disgusted, throw my hands up, and leave the room, but that doesn't mean I dislike individual homosexuals.
> 
> Please, people, be a little understanding here.  It seems everyone is quick to complain about gay rights and how the minority opinion is not being heard, when they're just as quick to turn around and tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves.  How can you promote open mindedness and viciously attack those who aren't afraid to voice the conservative opinion?



I agree. I mean, there normal people who have different sexuality.....there's nothing bad about that. To me....homosexuality peoples kinda remind me of when the blacks were condered low staus and treated like crap, but everyone accepted them and got over it. Maybe, it'll be the same thing to gays. 


Also....crawfish? Uh...what does that have to do with the subject?


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 5, 2007)

Crawfish suffer a lot of prejudice and discrimination. Not a lot of people know about it though because they haven't really sorted out their crawfish rights organisation to spread the word. Blacks? Gays? Jews? They have nothing on the suffering of the crawfish.

I got snipped by a french crawfish once, so frankly I have no sympathy whatsoever.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 5, 2007)

> I got snipped by a french crawfish once, so frankly I have no sympathy whatsoever.



there you go again.  You are so clearly prejudice.  One single crawfish snips you and you go and judge the whole race!


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 5, 2007)

sj2k said:


> there you go again.  You are so clearly prejudice.  One single crawfish snips you and you go and judge the whole race!



I'm not prejudice just because I hate all crawfish! I have several crawfish friends who I get on fine with, actually. As long as they don't push their crawfishy-ness in my face, everyone's happy.


----------



## Itanji Kuraisu (Mar 5, 2007)

Homosex is wrong IMO. Do what you want.

I neg repped no one. This is my first time here since thurs nite. So all the folks that say I neg repped Toby can go fuck themselves. Esp, Amaretti and sj2k.


----------



## Amaretti (Mar 5, 2007)

Itanji Kuraisu said:


> Homosex is wrong IMO. Do what you want.
> 
> I neg repped no one. This is my first time here since thurs nite. So all the folks that say I neg repped Toby can go fuck themselves. Esp, Amaretti and sj2k.



Excuse me, we're talking about _crawfish_. Stop going off topic.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 5, 2007)

You know, I have been told that there are actually 3 families of crawfish, and many different species, Am, so how can you judge them all the same :amazed


----------



## KazouJutsu (Mar 5, 2007)

It's all about opinion. It's natural for some people to be attracted to the same sex.

I believe that no matter male, or female, you can fall in love with anybody.


----------



## Kisame. (Mar 5, 2007)

> I can't tell if you are seriouse or not kisame, I don't think so.



yes im serious. I know there ppl and deserve rights or whatever but I cant stand the males whom talk in that irritating voice and wear pink all the time and shit and it kills me say way for the dykes in guys clothing.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

Kisame said:


> yes im serious. I know there ppl and deserve rights or whatever but I cant stand the males whom talk in that irritating voice and wear pink all the time and shit and it kills me say way for the dykes in guys clothing.



I have to agree with this one. It's not that I hate gays, it's that I dislike those certain flamboiyant gays. A man is just a man, if he's gay so what, if he acts normal and mature than I could care less. But then there are those gays that have to let every body in the world know they are gay and fabulous. They come in the room wearing tight close screaming and talking fast and load. They always talk about their gayness and try too hard to talk to other guys.There're these two guys at my school I can' stand because of this and it's not because of their sexuality more so it is their personality which advertises their sexuality.

I think many males dislike gays because this is the image they get: two fruitcake guys dancing and talking like females and act like females that want to have sex with males. Many guys think gays just want to have sex with any guy meaning them also so they get defensive. Not all gays run around acting annoying but that is what media prosents on tv and some males won't accept that sissiesh behavior. Not all gays are like this.Some or most homosexual males are just regular guys who have a differen't preference for sex. Famales don't care because it is said they are more deffinate about their sexuality and can feel comfortable around gay women..Though I think it is because of the program in each male's head that says all females have a little lesbian in them.

Now as far as lesbians.. No...Dykes then I can sometimes differ. For you guys that do not know, a 'Dyke' is a female that dresses and acts like a male (mostly act like thuggish males). The school I go to is know as dyke city because it is filled with not just regular lesbians, but wannabe guys who try to be so hard. To me, this is annoying acting like something you aren't. It's sad when you think you're about to ask a guy something and you hear that deep feminem voice. I seen many fights where a guy thought he was beating the crap out of another guy until some other people informed everyone of the truth. I say, in their case, if you wanna be a guy just save up until you can afford to get the procejure change.

On this topic: I will admit, I really never liked the idea of gay marriage. Not because I just don't want the homosexuals to be happy but because of the children they will adopt. I've always seen the picture of them adopting children and turning them and the gay population would just grow to the point where homosexuality may not be a manority. What's wrong with that? Well nothing in general except that many kids won't feel comfortable around other gays and the discrimmination that will be in the air. Also what if some become bisexual( I hate them) that's how diseases arise and things bad will happen. But I just think of the worst, of course things may turn out for the better or just stay the same as it is now. I know there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage, all you can do is talk about your personal morals and say it is wrong.

You may say "Homosexuality is unusual and shouldn't be allowed." That is wrong though, homosexuality has been out for ever, even with animals other than humans. Even in the 14th century homosexuality was out and no one cared(No one cared to my knowledge). Hell, it was a holiday in Greece where for 4 days the court system would shut down and men would have sex with each other and get drunk and do other things(That is the history of christmas). To say it is unusual is an ignorant statement. You may also say "It is not natural at all" Well I say, do you know what natural is? Natural is living in the rural forest with nothing more than a big leaf for underwear and a spear for hunting. You having a microwave and a car is not natural at all. Typing on the computer is not natural since it is not from nature or traditional for that matter so that statement is off.

To say you don't like the idea because you don't like gays is another thing. It is YOUR opinion and you have the right to say it out loud.


----------



## Toby (Mar 5, 2007)

Bishop: I can inform you that all my gay acquaintances do not find the flamboyiant gays attractive, and that they, like me, believe that the flamboyiant gays are just like other flamboyiant arseholes only they have been commercialised, and now they are ruining the image of homosexuality, which simply enough is about men being attracted to men.

I personally dislike people not just flamboyiant, but the wannabe-culture as a whole. People who try to be cute who are obviously not, and the best one, the group of people pretending to be your friend but actually hitting on your girl/boyfriend. That is beyond the intrusion made by couples making out in public and talking about their sex-life. It is really too much.


----------



## Yoshitsune (Mar 5, 2007)

There are two different things here = homosexuality and "gay culture"

IDK why but some people decided to make being gay a culture, lifestyle, regimen...It should simply just be something that identifies who a person likes, and not their "preference" either, since it's not something chosen.

I personally hate that there exists such things as gay pride parades. It gives onlookers such a dumb outlook on "gay people" that they forget to differentiate between the "gay culture" people and your average guy that likes guys.


----------



## Toby (Mar 5, 2007)

Yoshitsune: I'd agree with your statement but would like to add that exhibitionism is the appropriate term here considered (by certain individuals) to be the peripheral and all-encompassing definition of gay behaviour as a rule.

Everyone has groups of exhibitionists, whether the range is from drunk hooligans to wasted sports icons or from fabuluous gays to militant lesbians: It is generally the same reason for the extraordinary behaviour, namely Hubris.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

I,at first, thought they were called metros.

Hey, they are gays. There are different ways people act in a sexuality. Just a different form of a homosexual, a more flamboiyant one.


----------



## Toby (Mar 5, 2007)

Aren't metrosexuals just people trying to be gay in a flamboyiant style? Or rather, a dandy?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> Aren't metrosexuals just people trying to be gay in a flamboyiant style? Or rather, a dandy?



Yes, they are just...Dandy. But at a younger age I thought those were groups of the flamboyiant gays.


----------



## Toby (Mar 5, 2007)

Bishop: Then truly there is no hope for this world. If the dandys are dying out then Jamiroquai is surely just a turncoat.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> Bishop: Then truly there is no hope for this world. If the dandys are dying out then Jamiroquai is surely just a turncoat.



"Thus the one who gives up faith on the world, is the one to proclaim anarchy"~Bishop


----------



## Toby (Mar 5, 2007)

LIES - There are no beholdings which my shackled fears are related to: "Release me from this... PRISON!"


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

"One shall never spam, unless he trolls. In that matter that one shall only spam 2 times his living ten"~Bishop

I hope you get the meaning.*Leaves because he has spammed too much*


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

Easy to believe that out of my whole post you only see dyke.
What is a kike?


----------



## sj2k (Mar 5, 2007)

Bishop, I saw more, but I didn't want to get into gay marraige here, we have a thread for that

And kike is a derogatory word for jews, it is the exact same thing as ^ (use bro), just for jews.  Just as slave owners yelled that at black slaves, so did nazi's yell that at jews.  Though kike was started way before that, it became more recognized as deragatory afer the holocaust.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 5, 2007)

I made the mistake of thinking I was in the gay marriage forum..forshame.

Hmph, never heard that term, nice to know.


----------



## Sphyer (Mar 5, 2007)

ROLF I asked the same question to him a while back.


----------

