NationStates Jolt Archive

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

ok then what is bisexual got half a straight gene and 1/2 a gay gene?

*reads all above posts*
And this people is one of the reasons why never join online debates.
*Leaves and vows never to return*

and there was much rjoicing *yah*

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

ok then what is bisexual got half a straight gene and 1/2 a gay gene?

... study your genetics. People have TWO genes that code for everything (except for sex chromosomes in males). You can have two different genes. Normally this is settled by dominant/recessive (if you have a gene for black hair and one for blonde hair, you'll have black hair), but sometimes it's only partially dominant.

In teh case of homosexuality, it's not entirely determined by genes, but alot of it certainly is.

It's like cancer, environment and genes both matter in getting it.

I am so completely furious. Everything I just said was not only ignored, but evidently was completely understood. I wonder if it was even read, because not a single comment was made. I am going to take ten deep breaths before I write a reply, because otherwise I might just snap.



Lots of valid evidence was in this post, but it was entirely ignored, so I see no reason to reproduce it.



i still dont see any concrete information in there.

There was more information in there than in every single posting you have made in this conversation. I say this because you have not ONCE presented a single piece of evidence, which is precisely what I did.

I will, however, spell the situation out for you again. If you can argue against it, please do, because I would be interested in seeing how you do so.

ohh and could it possibly be how they were brought up?!

Some of it. However, the most significant proportion of it is, apparently, genetic.

It should be pointed out that male and female sexuality are quite distinct in many ways. One of my female friends noted that, suprisingly often, if you asked an otherwise heterosexual girl if she would go out with another girl, she would say 'it depends on the girl' or something similar, whereas if you asked the same question of a man, he would reply 'no way' or something similar.

This is borne out by facts. Elke et al. (1986) discovered two pairs of male twins and four pairs of female twins, and in each pair one of the twins was gay. The pairs were all reared apart, so 'how they were brought up' had nothing to do with it. Among the female twins, no concordant (i.e. both gay) pairs were found; in the male twins, one pair was concordant (both were gay) and the other indefinite (the other twin was in a heterosexual relationship, but had a homosexual affair with an older man between the ages of 15 and 18 - definitely not normal for a totally heterosexual guy.

This is very odd, don't you think? The chances are actually incredibly small - consider how many men are actually homosexual, say... oh, 5%, and how many men (whatever sexuality) have a gay relationship - probably 10% at most - and we see that, if homosexuality is entirely to do with upbringing and has nothing to do with genetics, then there's only a 1 in 200 chance of getting those results. That's pretty tiny, don't you think?

More evidence: Bailey and Pillard (1911) studied homosexuality among monozygotic/dizgotic twins, adopted brothers and normal siblings, and gained respective concordances of 52%, 22%, 11% and 9.2%. These studies indicate two things:

1. the inherited component of homosexuality is apparently the most important;
2. there are other factors, probably upbringing, which affect it.

If you would care to argue with that, please do. But not before you've read the rest of my post, because I have a little suprise about it.

u show me the gene and ill believe you i want exactly what it is! ok until u dont hav any real prrof just some information that could be true but then again if you base your arguments on what could be true than you can say whatever you want about anything.

Do you understand anything about science? Here's a few pointers anyway, because you apparently don't know much about its methods.

First, we don't even know which genes are responsible for right-handedness, never mind homosexuality! Or do you think that it's something you learn as well? There's very little controversy that that's inherited.

Secondly, what do you expect me to do? Tell you that the 'gay gene' is on the bottom-left arm of the X chromosome and point to it? Give you a little diagram of a few chromosomes, with all the areas affecting gay sexuality highlighted neatly? Declare 'yes, it's the GAY-1 gene, right there, and it does so-and-so...'? I doubt it would help either of us if I showed you precisely which gene it was.

I have, in the above, cited studies which nicely demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic. I don't actually need to say which genes propagate it, because there's no need - I mean, just because I don't know which genes make my eyes such a bright blue doesn't mean that I can't say it's genetic.

And now, I'm going to tell you AGAIN what I told you before: that it doesn't actually matter that much anyway. Whether or not it's genetic is an academic issue. The main point is that it doesn't change - or rather, resists change very strongly, and is harder to 'cure' than, say, schizophrenia - and is evidently a natural phenomenon. I have demonstrated over and over why this is, and I don't want to do so again. Instead, try and demonstrate any fallacies in my reasoning above. Really.

And this time, please read it! It would be nice if you could actually understand and argue against my response, since I take the time to do so with yours, and at great length, despite the lack of concrete information. I am, it seems, the only one in this dialogue capable of providing facts, and the only one who criticises them directly without simply making a general comment. (Though, as I recall, you at least had a relevent criticism of my piano posting, albeit one which was basically due to misunderstanding.)

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

It's a good analogy, but I wouldn't relate homosexuality to cancer. You might start giving the fundamentalists ideas about it being a disease again.

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

It's odd - they say people write with their right hand because right handedness is genetic, but tell me this - why do some people only start writing with one hand later in life?

The answer is incredibly obvious - because people only learn to write later in life. Similarly, people only start to experience sexual urges later in life.

Or do you mean, why do some people 'realise' suddenly that they are homosexual? Because that's what it is - a realisation. People who start having gay relationships later in life almost always admit that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

ok then what is bisexual got half a straight gene and 1/2 a gay gene?

Do you actually understand anything about genetics at all? A bisexual, most likely, is simply someone who either (a) is genetically homosexual or heterosexual, but was not 'fixed' early in life, or (b) is genetically bisexual.

- Jordan

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

it is one of tolerance to a certain point! it is more of charity! we need to be kind and loveing towards our neighbor BUT we have to do all we can to turn them away from sin. and we cannot support sinful acts such as homosexuality in this instance and in romans one it clearly says it is a sin. ohh and since doesnt have any concrete evidence.

Does Jesus ever say that homosexuality is a sin? I don't know about you, but I base my Christianity far more on what Christ said (or what we believe him to have said) than what Paul or some ancient Hebrew king said. One of the apostles, maybe. I would accept that message from anyone who had personally met Jesus, which (correct me if I'm wrong) Paul never did. If that makes me a "half-assed Catholic" then I'm a half-assed Catholic. I would rather be a half-assed Catholic and let into heaven for giving gays their dignity, than be a "good" Catholic and have St. Peter turn me down because I expressed hatred of gays and tried to force my sexuality on them.

All of Paul's ideas, he got from a vision, which for all we know could have been a hallucination. I don't disrespect Paul or anything like that. I think Paul, although having some sort of discriminatory remarks (homos, women, etc.), was a great guy and right on quite a few points, especially the explanation of love, which, I think was in the same letter condemning homosexuals. Tell me, if a man's feelings toward another man fit those criteria (sorry I don't have a bible near my computer but you should have heard it if you've ever been to a Christian wedding) is it not love because it's "sinful"?

The main reason homosexual actions are considered sinful, is because we (Catholics) condemn premarital sex, and if the person cannot get married, how can they have ligitimate sex? If they love each other according to Paul's explanation, how is it any different from love between a man and a woman?

Oh and I recall you (Of portugal) telling me that "Even if it is genetic it is still wrong" That doesn't seem fair.

Vivelo, it is great to see the intelligence and thoughtfulness I've come to expect in the best Catholics reflected on this forum. So many insults are tossed at them, but those I respect most bear little resemblence to the image perpetuated by such uninformed generalisations.

And I don't say that because your opinions accord to mine - I view just as highly those who disagree, but can express themselves with the learning, logical panache and debating flair that was, for a long time, a defining feature of Catholic scholars.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

It's a good analogy, but I wouldn't relate homosexuality to cancer. You might start giving the fundamentalists ideas about it being a disease again.

Homosexuality not only causes aids but also cancer, I see not point to let homosexuals live, I person think they should all be terminated.

It's a good analogy, but I wouldn't relate homosexuality to cancer. You might start giving the fundamentalists ideas about it being a disease again.

Homosexuality not only causes aids but also cancer, I see not point to let homosexuals live, I person think they should all be terminated.

Nicely demonstrated. You capture the reasoning of many fundamentalists beautifully.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Doctor Nucular, you have just proven that your Medical License needs to be reconsidered.

Doctor Nucular, you have just proven that your Medical License needs to be reconsidered.

I'm really hoping he's just kidding to show off how fundamentalists often work!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I'm not taking anything Nucular says lightly, as his views seem haphazard and shifting.

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

ok then what is bisexual got half a straight gene and 1/2 a gay gene?

... study your genetics. People have TWO genes that code for everything (except for sex chromosomes in males). You can have two different genes. Normally this is settled by dominant/recessive (if you have a gene for black hair and one for blonde hair, you'll have black hair), but sometimes it's only partially dominant.

In teh case of homosexuality, it's not entirely determined by genes, but alot of it certainly is.

It's like cancer, environment and genes both matter in getting it.


what genes please specify, if possible the genetic stranda and the chenicals that cause this.

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

It's odd - they say people write with their right hand because right handedness is genetic, but tell me this - why do some people only start writing with one hand later in life?

The answer is incredibly obvious - because people only learn to write later in life. Similarly, people only start to experience sexual urges later in life.

Or do you mean, why do some people 'realise' suddenly that they are homosexual? Because that's what it is - a realisation. People who start having gay relationships later in life almost always admit that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

have you every met a fag 2nd grader? i never have! but i have met 2nd graders who are straight. your arghumenyt also has a big flaw. the hand you use to write depends on what hand is the most coordinated which a person can easily change over time. and how come some people wait till after they have already had a true realtionship with another from the other sex to turn gay? i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Sounds like she was repressing her sexuality because of a homophobic atmosphere to me.

Instead of typing it out, I decided ot be lazy and cut n paste.

The scientific findings began in 1991 when Simon LeVay, working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. (The majority of homosexual men also happened to have died from AIDS.) The cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 in the hypothalamus were reduced in size in homosexual men, much to the same degree that the same group of neurons is reduced in women. This region of the hypothalamus is also commonly thought of as participating in “the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior” (LeVay, 1991). LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal reasons to pursue research in this area. A homosexual himself, he lost his partner of 21 years to AIDS. As was reported in a Newsweek cover-story in 1992, he felt that “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether” (Gelman et al., 1992). It may also be said that he was not working without the sense of scope of his project: “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.” Whether this personal interest affected his scientific practice is still left to be determined.

The most important paper that reported the ‘gay gene’ was from Hamer et al., a team of geneticists working for the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Dr. Dean Hamer and his colleagues reported in 1993 that, using DNA from homosexual siblings and their pedigrees, a gene for homosexuality seemed to be maternally linked and found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. He chose 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that 33 of them shared a set of five markers on the long arm of the X chromosome. In the July 19, 1993 edition of Science, Hamer reported that the linkage translated to a “99.5% certainty that there is a gene (or genes) in this area of the X chromosome that predisposes a male to become a heterosexual” (Hamer et al., 1993). Despite this statistical data, Hamer did try and put his findings in context and to qualify his statements using words such as “suggest” and “seem to indicate.” He reports that there are “probably several hundred genes in that region” and that most of them aren't identified. Despite his hesitiation, the media would soon project that his findings, of course, proposed that science was well on its way to finding the gene for homosexuality.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/pictures%20for%20website/chromosomemap.gif

Hypothetical placement of the "gay gene," on the X chromosome.

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Sounds like she was repressing her sexuality because of a homophobic atmosphere to me.

*cough*... a latent homosexual. They are quite well known for being vocally anti-gay and making sure people hear about it. :wink:

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

It's odd - they say people write with their right hand because right handedness is genetic, but tell me this - why do some people only start writing with one hand later in life?

The answer is incredibly obvious - because people only learn to write later in life. Similarly, people only start to experience sexual urges later in life.

Or do you mean, why do some people 'realise' suddenly that they are homosexual? Because that's what it is - a realisation. People who start having gay relationships later in life almost always admit that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

have you every met a fag 2nd grader? i never have! but i have met 2nd graders who are straight.

Oh, come on. Have you once more ignored my posting? Anyway...

Here are a few reasons you might never have met a gay second grader: -

- how many people are going to come out in second grade? For goodness sake! The very thought is absurd. First, they want to survive schooling, and with people saying the kind of things you do, that would be mighty hard. Second, they might not be sure of their sexuality - being gay puts you in an unusual position, so you might want to wait a bit before saying 'yes, this is definite.' And finally, they could quite possibly go into denial.

- you call them fags and are violently anti-gay. Do you honestly think any gay people are going to confide in you? I know several gay people, and a large number of them were definitely gay from a very early age. In fact, one of them reported his fascination for the same sex starting as early as seven, and another said that he knew he was gay by ten.

- there are very few gay people anyway compared to the rest of the population!

Those are the reasons you haven't met any while I have. Some of the gay people I know had their first sexual experience before they were even twelve. It seems that it progresses analagously to heterosexuality in that respect.

your arghumenyt also has a big flaw. the hand you use to write depends on what hand is the most coordinated which a person can easily change over time.

Now onto handedness. People who are left dominant naturally start writing with their right hand, and vice versa. They can swap hands, true, but it is difficult for them to do. Furthermore, even though they might be compelled to write with the non-dominant hand, they quickly revert to writing with their natural hand. The same is true of sexuality - gay people can be forced to have sex with the opposite sex, but they quickly and easily change back to having sex according to their natural orientation.

and how come some people wait till after they have already had a true realtionship with another from the other sex to turn gay?

I've already explained this. Many gay men and women get married and have children, because they're so afraid of people like you - yes, you - who tell them they aren't natural. They know they are gay, but they either try to deny it or repress it, or both. Afterwards, they will admit that they were gay even before they decided to marry, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Find me one person that actually turned gay. Seriously. People don't just pick up an orientation all of a sudden.

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

What? That doesn't sound at all like a mental disorder!

Many gay people are scared of their sexuality, or of expressing it, so they pretend to be violently heterosexual, often to extremes. My friend the rugby player was the same, he told me that when he was younger he would snigger at the jokes and call people gay for no reason other than to look macho, and to disguise his own sexuality. He's a very sensitive guy, but he was a teenager and immature.

Basically, she was gay (or bi) all along, before she gave up and decided to go out with girls. However, it should be pointed out that female sexuality is less limited by genetics than male sexuality, so it's always possible that she actually never entertained the notion beforehand. Why not ask her about it?

Have you yet responded to the arguments set up in my previous replies, or could you not think of any?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

all that needs to be said is this... a quote from John Cusack's character Rob Gordon in the movie "High Fidelity".... "How can it be bullshit to state a prefrance?"

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Sounds like she was repressing her sexuality because of a homophobic atmosphere to me.

*cough*... a latent homosexual. They are quite well known for being vocally anti-gay and making sure people hear about it. :wink:

Quite.

I recall being very anti... well, anything. I must have been completely unbearable. I loved the future portrayed in Demolition Man, and was so self-righteous! The best insult to aim at me was 'who are you going out with?' because I thought that dating was something only done by perverts who couldn't control their libidos.

Of course, that's because I honestly didn't get the whole 'sex' thing, and thought it was all pretty disgusting. It still seems alien, after a couple of years of experimentation, so I guess that makes me asexual.

Incidentally, does anyone have a problem with that? I know the LDS church does...

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Sounds like she was repressing her sexuality because of a homophobic atmosphere to me.

No wonder with a friend who'd call her a fag. :roll:

My country is questioning gay/ lesbians bi's and any other types of togetherness. I think this problem to not let gays have the same rights and jobs as straight people. I support letting people be what they want to be. Yes these people should be able to have the same jobs and roles in soceity as straight people. We are not talking about religion here we are talking about human life, and feeling ashamed of being who you are.
Please consider this in voting They are people too they have feelings too!
The Country Of Laimbo

Look at what Thoralbania has to say on the issue.

To suck a d**k or not to suck a d**k. That sounds like a choice to me.
Do you think it's disgusting when your girlfriend does that to you?

Where I work, there is a homosexual bowling league, and what annoys me about them is that they all try and push there homosexuality onto everyone else. That makes me very uncomfortable. We just had a seminar about sexual harrassment, and for homosexuals, harassing people and pushing their pschycosexuality onto everyone else is a hobby because they get some kind of enjoyment out of it. Why cant homosexuals keep there sexuality to themselves?

Expressions of sexuality at work:
Partner's photo on desk
Wedding ring
Kissing the person who drops them off at work
Holding the hand of the person who turns up to take them to lunch
Taking their partner to a formal work function
Mentioning the word husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend
Mentioning their partner's name (in most cases, a few gender indeterminate names do exist)

I was walking by once, and I had one of them grab me by the hand and ask me my name. I walked off, and he wrote his phone # on a piece of paper. Now WTF is that, it is probably that event that makes me so paranoid about them. I quit working on thursdays, cuz that is when they bowl.

I'm gay and I would not like to have someone grab my hand like that. How do you feel about a girl just giving you their phone number? What about a girl you find extremely unattractive?
By giving you their number the giver puts control in your hands

have you every met a fag 2nd grader? i never have! but i have met 2nd graders who are straight. your arghumenyt also has a big flaw. the hand you use to write depends on what hand is the most coordinated which a person can easily change over time. and how come some people wait till after they have already had a true realtionship with another from the other sex to turn gay? i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

When I was a 2nd Grader,the boys and girls didn't bother much with each other.
Sexual identity doesn't come out until puberty, which is around 12 years old.

I'm a nice example. I felt things since I was 12. I realised it since I was 18. Like I didn't care.

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

It's odd - they say people write with their right hand because right handedness is genetic, but tell me this - why do some people only start writing with one hand later in life?

The answer is incredibly obvious - because people only learn to write later in life. Similarly, people only start to experience sexual urges later in life.

Or do you mean, why do some people 'realise' suddenly that they are homosexual? Because that's what it is - a realisation. People who start having gay relationships later in life almost always admit that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

have you every met a fag 2nd grader?

It's funny you should mention SECOND GRADE in particular, because that was the year I first remember starting to show signs of bisexuality. I would play doctor with other girls, but never with boys. I even had a friend of mine sleep over once and we had a little (and by little I mean lengthy) "show me yours and I'll show you mine" session. I rented an illustrated book of The Little Mermaid from the library just because the mermaids were topless. One time I drew nipples on one of my Barbie dolls because her breasts looked too fake without them. I remember finding these books of sorta artsy hippie-ish photos of naked people... there was one of only naked men, and one of only naked women. I found the naked women book first, and I looked through it extensively. I found the naked men one second, and I looked at it for a second and I was like "This isn't fun, I'm not looking at this anymore."
I also remember watching a movie on TV just because I saw in the preview or something that they showed her breasts at one time.

I've never been molested or anything like that as a child... later on I even replicated what I learned from other children in acting like homosexuality was a gross thing, completely forgetting my experiences from 2nd grade on. I even remember in 6th grade or so downloading those computer paper dolls and dressing them in slutty outfits and trying to justify it to myself without admitting that I was attracted to girls. I remember watching the Mask somewhere in the vacinity of 5th grade (it could have been 4th, 5th, or 6th, I can't remember) and being smitten with Cameron Diaz and agonising over the fact that I had a much easier time telling when girls were attractive than when guys were.

That's right. I must have been... raised weirdly or something! I've had every intention of marrying a man and having children ever since I was a little child. Could it POSSIBLY be that I just HAPPEN to GENETICALLY be attracted to women, too? GEEZ, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN HANDLE THAT CONCEPT!!!


As for meeting 2nd graders who were gay, I have a friend who used to try to run around kissing other little boys when he was in kindergarten. Your kung fu is WEAK, old man.

i never have! but i have met 2nd graders who are straight. your arghumenyt also has a big flaw. the hand you use to write depends on what hand is the most coordinated which a person can easily change over time.

You're an idiot. Very few people can change which hand they're dominant with except if they're forced to use their weaker hand when they're younger. I guess maybe you could try to change it later on if you tried to completely neglect your dominant hand and only use your weaker hand, and you couldn't ever use your formerly dominant hand until you were absolutely sure that your other hand was more dominant now, otherwise your brain's predisposition to using your original hand would take over. Even in this scenario, you'd probably just end up being ambidextrous unless you chopped off your other hand.

Either way, you're missing the point. The point was that the dominant hand is a simple, simple thing, and scientists still haven't pinpointed IT. You tell me the chemical make-up of the right-handed gene and we'll talk. Until then, I'll continue to laugh at how ignorant and blind you are.

Another thing, the use of one's hand isn't at all rooted in emotion for most people. Now, a man needs to be aroused to get an erection. You don't need a certain mental condition to use your hand. If a man is repulsed by women, it will be almost impossible for him to hold an erection long enough to have sex with her. Some gay men have had sex with women, but they usually don't think about it too much, and thus it becomes yet another bodily function... much like how many women have described being molested or raped by the same person over a long period of time.
Your perception of the analogy between dominant handedness and homosexuality is completely warped.
But I can guarantee you, no gay man has ever MADE LOVE to a woman.

and how come some people wait till after they have already had a true realtionship with another from the other sex to turn gay?

How can you possibly say "true'? What does "true" entail here? There was sex involved? They truly loved each other? The second is merely speculation, anyway. The first can be a sign that someone wanted to be normal so badly that they forced themself to have sex with someone they were not attracted to.
It's people like YOU that make this phenomenon happen! Oh, the irony!

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Um... it's called denial, my inept friend. You yourself may have experienced this without even knowing!
A lot of people who are "anti-fag," as you so eloquently put it, are scared shitless of the latent homosexual feelings they experience. This is a known fact. Hell, it's even included in part of the definition of "homophobe."

And, speaking of gay second graders, I had a friend in third grade who definitely showed homosexual tendencies.

study your genetics. People have TWO genes that code for everything (except for sex chromosomes in males). You can have two different genes. Normally this is settled by dominant/recessive (if you have a gene for black hair and one for blonde hair, you'll have black hair),

Actually, the gene for black hair is recessive, and the gene for blonde hair is dominant. If you have one gene for black hair and one gene for blonde hair, you'll have blonde hair. Type "non-mendelian genetics" into a search engine and you'll find the page where I found that information. I'm too lazy to look it up right now :P

Not to split hairs (no pun intended, I swear!), I just thought I'd mention it

study your genetics. People have TWO genes that code for everything (except for sex chromosomes in males). You can have two different genes. Normally this is settled by dominant/recessive (if you have a gene for black hair and one for blonde hair, you'll have black hair),

Actually, the gene for black hair is recessive, and the gene for blonde hair is dominant. If you have one gene for black hair and one gene for blonde hair, you'll have blonde hair. Type "non-mendelian genetics" into a search engine and you'll find the page where I found that information. I'm too lazy to look it up right now :P

Not to split hairs (no pun intended, I swear!), I just thought I'd mention it

Alright then, take the genetic makeup of eyes as your example. People with blue eyes have two "blue genes, people with brown eyes have two "brown" genes, and people with green eyes have one of each. I'm not sure how grey eyes fit into the equation, though... perhaps it's a mutation...

study your genetics. People have TWO genes that code for everything (except for sex chromosomes in males). You can have two different genes. Normally this is settled by dominant/recessive (if you have a gene for black hair and one for blonde hair, you'll have black hair),

Actually, the gene for black hair is recessive, and the gene for blonde hair is dominant. If you have one gene for black hair and one gene for blonde hair, you'll have blonde hair. Type "non-mendelian genetics" into a search engine and you'll find the page where I found that information. I'm too lazy to look it up right now :P

Not to split hairs (no pun intended, I swear!), I just thought I'd mention it

No the genes for blonde hair, blue eyes, fair complexion in general are all recessive. That's why there are so many more brunettes than blondes.

Of portugal, you too are basing your argument on what might be true. The simple matter is genetics is a more probable cause than a "mental disorder."

is it though, it may be. but tell me this why do some people turn homosexual later on in life? i mean what is it dormant or something that only another fag can bring out? doesnt make much sense to me

It's odd - they say people write with their right hand because right handedness is genetic, but tell me this - why do some people only start writing with one hand later in life?

The answer is incredibly obvious - because people only learn to write later in life. Similarly, people only start to experience sexual urges later in life.

Or do you mean, why do some people 'realise' suddenly that they are homosexual? Because that's what it is - a realisation. People who start having gay relationships later in life almost always admit that they were attracted to the same sex from the beginning.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

have you every met a fag 2nd grader?

It's funny you should mention SECOND GRADE in particular, because that was the year I first remember starting to show signs of bisexuality. I would play doctor with other girls, but never with boys. I even had a friend of mine sleep over once and we had a little (and by little I mean lengthy) "show me yours and I'll show you mine" session. I rented an illustrated book of The Little Mermaid from the library just because the mermaids were topless. One time I drew nipples on one of my Barbie dolls because her breasts looked too fake without them. I remember finding these books of sorta artsy hippie-ish photos of naked people... there was one of only naked men, and one of only naked women. I found the naked women book first, and I looked through it extensively. I found the naked men one second, and I looked at it for a second and I was like "This isn't fun, I'm not looking at this anymore."
I also remember watching a movie on TV just because I saw in the preview or something that they showed her breasts at one time.

I've never been molested or anything like that as a child... later on I even replicated what I learned from other children in acting like homosexuality was a gross thing, completely forgetting my experiences from 2nd grade on. I even remember in 6th grade or so downloading those computer paper dolls and dressing them in slutty outfits and trying to justify it to myself without admitting that I was attracted to girls. I remember watching the Mask somewhere in the vacinity of 5th grade (it could have been 4th, 5th, or 6th, I can't remember) and being smitten with Cameron Diaz and agonising over the fact that I had a much easier time telling when girls were attractive than when guys were.

That's right. I must have been... raised weirdly or something! I've had every intention of marrying a man and having children ever since I was a little child. Could it POSSIBLY be that I just HAPPEN to GENETICALLY be attracted to women, too? GEEZ, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN HANDLE THAT CONCEPT!!!


As for meeting 2nd graders who were gay, I have a friend who used to try to run around kissing other little boys when he was in kindergarten. Your kung fu is WEAK, old man.

i never have! but i have met 2nd graders who are straight. your arghumenyt also has a big flaw. the hand you use to write depends on what hand is the most coordinated which a person can easily change over time.

You're an idiot. Very few people can change which hand they're dominant with except if they're forced to use their weaker hand when they're younger. I guess maybe you could try to change it later on if you tried to completely neglect your dominant hand and only use your weaker hand, and you couldn't ever use your formerly dominant hand until you were absolutely sure that your other hand was more dominant now, otherwise your brain's predisposition to using your original hand would take over. Even in this scenario, you'd probably just end up being ambidextrous unless you chopped off your other hand.

Either way, you're missing the point. The point was that the dominant hand is a simple, simple thing, and scientists still haven't pinpointed IT. You tell me the chemical make-up of the right-handed gene and we'll talk. Until then, I'll continue to laugh at how ignorant and blind you are.

Another thing, the use of one's hand isn't at all rooted in emotion for most people. Now, a man needs to be aroused to get an erection. You don't need a certain mental condition to use your hand. If a man is repulsed by women, it will be almost impossible for him to hold an erection long enough to have sex with her. Some gay men have had sex with women, but they usually don't think about it too much, and thus it becomes yet another bodily function... much like how many women have described being molested or raped by the same person over a long period of time.
Your perception of the analogy between dominant handedness and homosexuality is completely warped.
But I can guarantee you, no gay man has ever MADE LOVE to a woman.

and how come some people wait till after they have already had a true realtionship with another from the other sex to turn gay?

How can you possibly say "true'? What does "true" entail here? There was sex involved? They truly loved each other? The second is merely speculation, anyway. The first can be a sign that someone wanted to be normal so badly that they forced themself to have sex with someone they were not attracted to.
It's people like YOU that make this phenomenon happen! Oh, the irony!

i have a friend who went fag, but before that she was very anti-gay, and also had many boy friends! why did it take that long? this seems like a mental dissorder!

Um... it's called denial, my inept friend. You yourself may have experienced this without even knowing!
A lot of people who are "anti-fag," as you so eloquently put it, are scared shitless of the latent homosexual feelings they experience. This is a known fact. Hell, it's even included in part of the definition of "homophobe."

Well, it seems that you've grasped all my points, and felt the same frustration I do that he doesn't get it, and can't argue against them, and yet still disagrees.

I think I manage to sound a bit less... well, angry, but I don't know if I pull it off - do I?

Oh! Um, you might be able to answer (personally) a little question: do you think that women are, in terms of genetic orientation, a little more 'bi-curious' than men? As in, more open? That would explain why there are fewer lesbians (why face discrimination if you don't have to?), and why women so often answer 'it would depend on the woman' if asked, would they sleep with someone of the same sex. Oh, and it would explain the scientific data.

It would be nice to have a bi-female perspective on this. (I have one friend matching that description, but I haven't emailed her in a bit and that's not how I'd like to re-establish our contact...)

- Jordan

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

I think you just need a hug. :P :wink: :twisted:

Well, it seems that you've grasped all my points, and felt the same frustration I do that he doesn't get it, and can't argue against them, and yet still disagrees.

I think I manage to sound a bit less... well, angry, but I don't know if I pull it off - do I?

Yes, you do a remarkable job of keeping your patience. I try not to judge people too quickly, but when someone proves to me that they're beyond reasoning, I will not be hesitant to call them an idiot. But even then I usually am willing to give them another chance to grow a brain (which oddly enough HAS happened to me, with a guy who said that he thought all gay people should die, no less. See, he once dated a girl who dumped him for her best friend, who was a female. There apparently were some gay men he perceived to be hitting on him at some point, too... I dunno... there were some murky issues. I insulted him relentlessly, but my friend Leon, who happens to be gay, befriended him and tried to convince people to be nice to him. This showed him that gay people aren't evil or something, and he backed down on his judgement. He became a lot less irritating after that, it was rather incredible.)
er... anyway, yeah.

Oh! Um, you might be able to answer (personally) a little question: do you think that women are, in terms of genetic orientation, a little more 'bi-curious' than men? As in, more open? That would explain why there are fewer lesbians (why face discrimination if you don't have to?), and why women so often answer 'it would depend on the woman' if asked, would they sleep with someone of the same sex. Oh, and it would explain the scientific data.

It would be nice to have a bi-female perspective on this. (I have one friend matching that description, but I haven't emailed her in a bit and that's not how I'd like to re-establish our contact...)

- Jordan

Oh, I've observed the very same thing. There are a number of factors that I think are involved. The biggest one, I think, is that society doesn't frown upon women experimenting with other women nearly as much as it does for men experimenting with men. Obviously this has partly to do with fetishism over lesbians and partly to do with the fact that there is no anal sex necessarily involved in lesbian sex, which is what puts some people off about gay men. :wink:

Women also have less testosterone than men, so they also tend not to feel the need to "prove" themselves to be genuinely members of their gender to other people. Since women have been regarded as the inferior sex for so long, traditionally it's been degrading for a man to exhibit any behaviour that could be deemed "feminine," which includes showing sexual interest in other men.

Since women have less of a tendency to feel the need to prove their trueness to their gender (ever notice how it's cute to be a tomboy but it's contemptible to be a sissy?), they usually feel much less hesitant to explore any kind of feelings they have for other women.

I've got other theories too, but they're all zinging around in my head so fast that I can't keep up with them. So basically I'll just conclude by saying, women have less testosterone which makes them less aggressive; women don't have to worry as much what people will think if they show signs of attraction to other women, because it's not considered bad for a woman to exhibit behaviour that is characterised as "masculine" anymore, and because some people fetishise that sort of behaviour. Since people are naturally curious, and it's not considered "contemptible" by most for women to express interest in other women (and women tend to be less narrow-minded about that sort of thing, which probably has partly to do with the physiology of women and partly to do with the lack of taboo nature), the natural inclination is for women to be more bi-curious.

Oh, another thing, a lot of girls in the "rebellion stage" of life become bi-curious, probably because it's out of the norm, but it's not likely that they'll be treated as badly as a boy experimenting in that same arena. It's still "different" and "unusual," but it's not dangerous like it is for men. Thus it becomes a prime candidate for behaviour to be picked up by young women who want to rebel or experiment with unusual things.

Also, you have to admit that breasts are cool. I mean, we have a predisposition to seeing them as something positive as they're a food source for babies, and they're squishy and soft. There are even some gay men who like breasts, for crying out loud. So I would imagine that this phenomenon would lead to more women becoming curious about other women. I mean, heh, that's what happened with me back in 2nd grade :lol:

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

While your stupidity was probably acquired genetically (unless you were malnourished as a child or something to that effect) I still can't help but feel a personal grudge against you. I mean, you are using up oxygen that should rightfully be someone else's. You're taking up space and eating food that could belong to someone more worthy than you; or at least someone who isn't a sore on the face of the planet.

You know what? I don't care what scientists say. I think you CHOSE to be an idiot. And by that basis, I think the UN should make it legal to kill stupid people. In fact, they can reward us with money! Hell, I can buy myself a new computer that way! Whoopee!

The UN already has provided gay rights already, and they should be enforced.

Ooh! I thought of another example! A lot of people try to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. I've got a parallel for everyone to consider.

Creativity. It is against the norm to be creative. Often, creative people will be put down and ridiculed as "art fags" or because people are intimidated by their unusual way of thinking. I've had many a teacher who was intimidated by my creativity, which caused my grades to suffer. I am NOT making this up, it's true.

Most people aren't very creative. It's just a fact of life. Does that make it unnatural to be creative? I mean, hell, animals aren't creative! Gay people have one up on us there! Does that mean that creative people should be condemned? It isn't normal, so it must be wrong... right? And it never specifically SAYS in the Bible that people have the right to make art and to exercise their creativity, does it?

It makes sense from a psychological standpoint that creativity is genetic. For one thing, my mother is insanely creative, and so am I. So is my brother. And my grandpa on my mother's side is pretty DAMN creative, too, since he was something of an inventor... he created a record player that you could put in the car, sideways even if you wanted, and it wouldn't skip. He invented a remote-control garage-door opener before such a thing existed. He even came up with the idea for RADAR before it was ever conceived, but unfortunately didn't do anything with it.
Logically, you'd think it was genetic right? But it could be environmental, right?! After all, they don't have a specific creativity gene. And some people are encouraged by their parents to do math and science as a child because art is a career you go into if you want to be poor... but years later they might become an artist. SEE? OMG THAT MUST MEAN THEY WILFULLY BECAME CREATIVE!

Actually, as far as I know, you can't make yourself become creative... and not only do I doubt I could stop being creative, but I wouldn't WANT to, either.

Some people even see creative careers as a waste of time. After all, money is what's important, right? Art and literature aren't important. That's sissy stuff. The STOCK MARKET, that's something worthwhile to dedicate your life to! We should get rid of all the artists and poets! They're just annoying!


Now, you might now be thinking "Yeah, but creativity actually has a positive impact on society." Yeah? Well homosexuality has a positive impact on society too. "What?!" you say. Well, for one thing, far too many countries have far too high of population growth. There are already too many people on the Earth as it is. If there were less people at this point, the quality of life would go up. Homosexuality contributes to this by helping decrease population growth. In addition to this, homosexuals are statistically more intelligent than heterosexuals (please note, this means nothing on an individual level, only at a group level) and make more money as well. They are good for the economy because they bring in more income but don't create new people to take up more resources. And allowing gay marriage would be even better for society! When you get married, your taxes go up, not down. However, they go back down again when you have children. Most gay couples never have children. Their taxes would never go back down, which is good for the economy. Also, there aren't enough adoptive parents in this country for one. You might say that you think the influence of homosexuals on children would be negative, but not only has the ... American Psychiatric Association, I believe it's called (sorry about the brainfart, folks) found no reason to believe that being raised by gay parents has a negative effect on children, but they CERTAINLY wouldn't cause as negative an effect on them (even if such an effect existed) as being juggled in between foster homes would, and this is scientifically PROVEN.

On top of all this, gay people have often been "ambassadors" between the sexes. Gay men TEND to be more sensitive than straight men (again, this is a group thing, not an individual thing) and they also understand what it's like to be in a relationship with a man and what kind of problems they would find therein. However, they also are still men, so they understand a man's viewpoint. Thus, they can help men and women understand each other better. Obviously this isn't always the case, but it often enough is. Ever notice how a lot of open-minded women like to have gay friends? It's because they're male, but they're non-threatening, and they tend to relate better with women, probably partly because they're not trying to get laid by them.

So obviously gay people are an asset to civilisation. Thus, being gay is comperable to being creative. It's rare, it's likely genetic, and couldn't possibly be considered a disease even though it can cause problems with some people who are just generally meany-heads, and is rare and "abnormal." It's also a benefit to society, and it makes people choose differing-from-normal lifestyles usually -- which should be not only tolerated but accepted and encouraged, for the good of society.

So there. :wink:

specail like retardatoin or just gay???

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Well, it seems that you've grasped all my points, and felt the same frustration I do that he doesn't get it, and can't argue against them, and yet still disagrees.

I think I manage to sound a bit less... well, angry, but I don't know if I pull it off - do I?

Yes, you do a remarkable job of keeping your patience. I try not to judge people too quickly, but when someone proves to me that they're beyond reasoning, I will not be hesitant to call them an idiot. But even then I usually am willing to give them another chance to grow a brain (which oddly enough HAS happened to me, with a guy who said that he thought all gay people should die, no less. See, he once dated a girl who dumped him for her best friend, who was a female. There apparently were some gay men he perceived to be hitting on him at some point, too... I dunno... there were some murky issues. I insulted him relentlessly, but my friend Leon, who happens to be gay, befriended him and tried to convince people to be nice to him. This showed him that gay people aren't evil or something, and he backed down on his judgement. He became a lot less irritating after that, it was rather incredible.)
er... anyway, yeah.

I'm glad to hear I'm staying relatively patient! It is amazing when someone's opinion changes - one of the things I notice is that people's views are seldom informed by logic, but by how they feel about an issue. It really annoys me when people refuse to allow anything - common sense, logic, complete and undisputable proof - to impact their beliefs once they have built them up. Honestly, if people don't want to hear it, they won't listen. Which is why the only way to change people is from the inside - letting them discover that they are wrong for themselves, like your friend did.

It would be wonderful if people would actually make sense, but I suppose it's all part of the marvellous human condition...

Oh! Um, you might be able to answer (personally) a little question: do you think that women are, in terms of genetic orientation, a little more 'bi-curious' than men? As in, more open? That would explain why there are fewer lesbians (why face discrimination if you don't have to?), and why women so often answer 'it would depend on the woman' if asked, would they sleep with someone of the same sex. Oh, and it would explain the scientific data.

It would be nice to have a bi-female perspective on this. (I have one friend matching that description, but I haven't emailed her in a bit and that's not how I'd like to re-establish our contact...)

- Jordan

Oh, I've observed the very same thing. There are a number of factors that I think are involved. The biggest one, I think, is that society doesn't frown upon women experimenting with other women nearly as much as it does for men experimenting with men. Obviously this has partly to do with fetishism over lesbians and partly to do with the fact that there is no anal sex necessarily involved in lesbian sex, which is what puts some people off about gay men. :wink:

Women also have less testosterone than men, so they also tend not to feel the need to "prove" themselves to be genuinely members of their gender to other people. Since women have been regarded as the inferior sex for so long, traditionally it's been degrading for a man to exhibit any behaviour that could be deemed "feminine," which includes showing sexual interest in other men.

Since women have less of a tendency to feel the need to prove their trueness to their gender (ever notice how it's cute to be a tomboy but it's contemptible to be a sissy?), they usually feel much less hesitant to explore any kind of feelings they have for other women.

I've got other theories too, but they're all zinging around in my head so fast that I can't keep up with them. So basically I'll just conclude by saying, women have less testosterone which makes them less aggressive; women don't have to worry as much what people will think if they show signs of attraction to other women, because it's not considered bad for a woman to exhibit behaviour that is characterised as "masculine" anymore, and because some people fetishise that sort of behaviour. Since people are naturally curious, and it's not considered "contemptible" by most for women to express interest in other women (and women tend to be less narrow-minded about that sort of thing, which probably has partly to do with the physiology of women and partly to do with the lack of taboo nature), the natural inclination is for women to be more bi-curious.

Yes, with the male culture being so hard-set against anything not approved by the collective hanging meatstick, there's a mighty social pressure on men to express themselves only in specific, acceptable ways. I wonder at which point in life sexuality is finalised, anyway, or if it continues to evolve, slowly, throughout the sexually active (as in, hormonally, not in deed) period of life? Total inversions never actually occur (well, at least, they're incredibly rare and debatable phenomena), but I wonder if partial inversions to bisexuality are within the normal range, given an absence of limiting factors?

It also explains why so many gay men would actually find it possible to enjoy (albeit in a limited fashion) sex with a girl, when most straight men would be unable to endure sex with another man - even open-minded straight men. Gay men have the choice of ignoring their sexuality or opening up to strange new possibilities, while straight men seldom have to go through such a period of introspection and can afford to lemming life without limiting their preferred means of sexual expression.

Oh, another thing, a lot of girls in the "rebellion stage" of life become bi-curious, probably because it's out of the norm, but it's not likely that they'll be treated as badly as a boy experimenting in that same arena. It's still "different" and "unusual," but it's not dangerous like it is for men. Thus it becomes a prime candidate for behaviour to be picked up by young women who want to rebel or experiment with unusual things.

Yes, those girls who are more open to... well, bi-tendancies tend to be rather more unique in other ways - creative or odd would also describe it. So perhaps you aren't far off the mark!

Also, you have to admit that breasts are cool. I mean, we have a predisposition to seeing them as something positive as they're a food source for babies, and they're squishy and soft. There are even some gay men who like breasts, for crying out loud. So I would imagine that this phenomenon would lead to more women becoming curious about other women. I mean, heh, that's what happened with me back in 2nd grade :lol:

Well... They're certainly weird, and they get in the way when you're trying to hug someone (I'm always scared to hug too hard, because I might offend them by pressing up against them!) But they do look good - they have this wonderful softening, curvaceous effect that somehow makes all girls prettier, no matter how big they (the breasts or the girl) are. From a purely personal, aesthetic point of view, that is.

Somehow, I don't feel you'll get much argument against that part of the proposition, anyway!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

A bit of thought on that...

1. The Bible forbids producing 'graven images,' a clear indictment against many forms of art.

2. Creative individuals are often criticised because they don't 'fit in,' certainly not into the boring 'straight-male-macho-clique'.

3. Creativity is unnatural.

4. There is evidence that creativity is genetic, but there is much debate, scientists don't know which genes affect it, and the studies are too few and have debatable results.

5. Creative thought is heavily resisted by many religions - look to Galileo and Darwin.

6. People are often frightened by creativity.

There are some odd parallels - I wonder if there are enough to warrant persecution of creativity outright with a basis as sound as that for challenging homosexuals and homosexuality? Thank you for noticing that... Umm, should I call you 'Faggotry' or 'Unrelenting'?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

Either you're a troll, a psycho or a complete nut, that's all I can say.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

We of Chumba believe that it is the right of every person, whether they male or female to live their lives in which ever way they see fit. As long as it doesn't effect their well being.

Envoy to his Holiness William VII

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

While your stupidity was probably acquired genetically (unless you were malnourished as a child or something to that effect) I still can't help but feel a personal grudge against you. I mean, you are using up oxygen that should rightfully be someone else's. You're taking up space and eating food that could belong to someone more worthy than you; or at least someone who isn't a sore on the face of the planet.

You know what? I don't care what scientists say. I think you CHOSE to be an idiot. And by that basis, I think the UN should make it legal to kill stupid people. In fact, they can reward us with money! Hell, I can buy myself a new computer that way! Whoopee!

Quite right, I won't even talk to people who want to kill gay people. I did that throughout the seventies and eighties in gay politics. Sweet reason won over the many, but the hard core vicious can never be swayed. I concluded some time ago that the answer is simply to murder them all before they get us. Talk's over. Kill, kill, kill them all!

personally, i think that all gays should be killed. the government or the UN (real world) could put out some thing where if you kill a gay person, then you would get like 5000 dollars (US). Also i don't think being gay involves a gene. I think it is a state of mind or a demon. Scientists can say all they want but its not a gene. Being gay is not how it was meant to be, otherwise men would have both male and female genetalia. since they don't, it is obviosly supposed to be betweeen a man and a woman. all gays should die, and if the UN did create that thing where u get paid to kill gay people, i would already have some practice.

While your stupidity was probably acquired genetically (unless you were malnourished as a child or something to that effect) I still can't help but feel a personal grudge against you. I mean, you are using up oxygen that should rightfully be someone else's. You're taking up space and eating food that could belong to someone more worthy than you; or at least someone who isn't a sore on the face of the planet.

You know what? I don't care what scientists say. I think you CHOSE to be an idiot. And by that basis, I think the UN should make it legal to kill stupid people. In fact, they can reward us with money! Hell, I can buy myself a new computer that way! Whoopee!

Quite right, I won't even talk to people who want to kill gay people. I did that throughout the seventies and eighties in gay politics. Sweet reason won over the many, but the hard core vicious can never be swayed. I concluded some time ago that the answer is simply to murder them all before they get us. Talk's over. Kill, kill, kill them all!

And another thing......

Filthy, horrid, disgusting little straights with your no-brain lives and your fuck - eat - crap - fuck - eat - crap - fuck - eat - crap existence on repeat until you die.

Being gay and being intelligent, able, creative and successful go together far more that being straight and intelligent go together. Geneticists are proving now what the historical evidence has revealed for centuries. Gay people as a group have added more to the sum total of human progress and achievement than the 95% of the population that thinks itself so fucking superior.

Well you're not.

God or nature or whatever is in control has relieved gay people of the burden of producing children. That's your job, you dumb pieces of nature fodder.

The blessed ones amongst you somehow manage to produce a one-in-ten miracle and create another gay person who has the built-in ability to do something great for humanity and leave a lasting legacy for you lot to marvel at.

That is how the world has progressed in every culture since the dawn of Man. If you don't believe it, check it yourselves. Look at the list of 'The Greats' in art, culture and science and see the high incidence of homosexuality in the list.

Monotonous, dull and stupid = Straight = Nature Fodder

Articulate, intelligent, creative, more than usually physically attractive, = Gay = Nature's Leap to a higher stage.

 Get rid of us and you get rid of brilliance and everything that has come together over the centuries that is worthwhile and which has made your lives better.

 Get rid of us and art and culture and science would die slowly but surely. Humankind would enter a new Dark Age.

 Get rid of us and you would regress to the level of animals within ten generations.

 Get rid of us and ultimately you too would die.

So, you and your repellent spawn remember exactly who and what you are and keep your mouths firmly shut. Like my very great indian friend says: "Never give a peasant any lift." Proper people do not want to hear your worthless opinions.

Thoralbania, I had given my support to you, but I now find ou insulting and shallow. If all you see straight people as is a possible source for more gay people, then how are you any different than the slave drivers? The only difference I see is that you have not enslaved us despite your apparent want to do so.

2 things I hear about gays:

#1: Homosexuality is unnatural! It's supposed to be a man and a woman!

#2: Gays are like animals! Giving in to their basic urges!

And then I think: "WTF!?"

I don't have a problem with Gay, Lesbian and Bi rights so long as it doesn't include them thinking they have the right to perform sexual acts in public, in front of me or my family, as their form of protest or any other reason they decide to. Also, I support them so long as it is equal, they are not entitled to more than anyone else. They are entitled to the exact same rights and liberties as everyone else.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I don't have a problem with Gay, Lesbian and Bi rights so long as it doesn't include them thinking they have the right to perform sexual acts in public, in front of me or my family, as their form of protest or any other reason they decide to.

Does this mean you think it is acceptable for hetrosexuals to perform sexual acts in public, in front of you or your family?

Thoralbania, I had given my support to you, but I now find ou insulting and shallow. If all you see straight people as is a possible source for more gay people, then how are you any different than the slave drivers? The only difference I see is that you have not enslaved us despite your apparent want to do so.

I'm sorry if it engendered that response in you. I thought it might upset some good people too. Rest assured, Thorlbania's bark is far worse than its bite. Really, we just wanted to make the unfeeling and cruel amongst straight people taste what it is like to be on the other end of a ranting, nazi's tirade where reason is allowed no space and a whole group of people are condemned for what they are. Remember, nazis and the like have talked like this about gay people for centuries and clapped each other on the back for displaying such evil.

Don't worry, the gay SuperMan thing was firmly tongue in cheek. But it does demonstrate a point don't you think?

Thoralbania, I had given my support to you, but I now find ou insulting and shallow. If all you see straight people as is a possible source for more gay people, then how are you any different than the slave drivers? The only difference I see is that you have not enslaved us despite your apparent want to do so.

I'm sorry if it engendered that response in you. I thought it might upset some good people too. Rest assured, Thorlbania's bark is far worse than its bite. Really, we just wanted to make the unfeeling and cruel amongst straight people taste what it is like to be on the other end of a ranting, nazi's tirade where reason is allowed no space and a whole group of people are condemned for what they are. Remember, nazis and the like have talked like this about gay people for centuries and clapped each other on the back for displaying such evil.

Don't worry, the gay SuperMan thing was firmly tongue in cheek. But it does demonstrate a point don't you think?

I think we need a few more fundamentalists. It seems that this conversation died when they all stopped responding.

Perhaps we pounded a few people too intensely with our judicious applications of logic and science, and they simply left? I notice that few of them seemed capable of sustained logical exchange, and found it easier to simply reiterate their opinions and answer a few points in a manner that demonstrated they didn't fully understand. There were one or two times they made valid criticisms, but mostly they simply challenged people to provide indisputable proof, ignoring the fact that they are the ones who can't provide such proof, and that science doesn't actually work that way... (I mean, we haven't even proved the existence of gravity. Science is about significance, not cetainty!)

Perhaps they had enough of people insulting their religions?

I suppose it's all for the best... But I am frustrated. Surely there's someone out there who can actually counter us on the same level, but to the opposite effect? Perhaps Pantocratoria, (s)he seemed capable of logic at least, and has a negative religious belief about homosexuality.

Anyone?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I don't have a problem with Gay, Lesbian and Bi rights so long as it doesn't include them thinking they have the right to perform sexual acts in public, in front of me or my family, as their form of protest or any other reason they decide to.

Does this mean you think it is acceptable for hetrosexuals to perform sexual acts in public, in front of you or your family?

I believe that was the whole point ;D

Gay people shouldn't have more rights than straight people... just the same amount.

And gay parades can be okay (there was one where I lived where they had things like big rainbow butterflies they were carrying and some of them had those flags that have the gay pride flag replacing the red and white stripes of the american flag, but still the blue square and the stars in the corner... tame stuff like that... there was no sex going on in the street or anything like that) as long as they're not just a gay mardi gras. Or if they are, then they should be in an area that is known for being like that or at a certain specific time of year... kinda like parts of New Orleans/mardi gras are both known for being sorta... orgy country/season. When people know when these things are happening, there are less incidents of unwitting parents leading their children into some random orgy.

I don't think people should try to hide the fact that people have sex from their children... but I also don't think it's bigotted or ignorant or naive to want to keep your kids out of an orgy, if you know what I mean ;D

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I don't have a problem with Gay, Lesbian and Bi rights so long as it doesn't include them thinking they have the right to perform sexual acts in public, in front of me or my family, as their form of protest or any other reason they decide to.

Does this mean you think it is acceptable for hetrosexuals to perform sexual acts in public, in front of you or your family?

I believe that was the whole point ;D

Gay people shouldn't have more rights than straight people... just the same amount.

"Special Rights" is something your right-wing fundies came up with. I just want equal rights

I think we need a few more fundamentalists. It seems that this conversation died when they all stopped responding.

Here, here! I've got some friends who could provide said argument, although they don't like Nation States... Guess I'll have to take this conversation to my lunch table! :lol:

Let’s not go over board with the exposure in public lets not band public shows of affection that tend to get forgotten if two girls or guys want to kiss in the middle of the road they should be able to with no worries of discrimination.

R/ President of the Teracknor Federation

ALL GAY NATIONS ARE WELCOME IN THE REGION OF BANDIDOS

WE WELCOME ALL NATIONS REGARDLESS OF POLITICS INTO OUR REGION. SO LONG AS WE OUT DO THE REGION OF THE MULLWEENO HOMEWORLDS WE WILL BE SATISFIED!

JOIN BANDIDOS TODAY!!

incidentally bandidos is the choice of beer for the gay people living in the european country of slovenija...

unless they prefer lasko or union of course...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I think this thread is getting a little off-topic. As I recall when I first joined, we were discussing the rights of a buissiness owner to hire/fire a worker merely by sexual preferences. Then it devolved into a sad debate about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality and hetero-superiority. As a resolution to the original topic, I say that regardless of what your religion dictates, if you are a buissiness owner, you cannot discriminate against your employees by sexual preference (or race, citizenship, etc.) If anyone can give good reason why a buissiness should be allowed to contradict this unofficial resolution, let's hear it.

The resolution is very specific, but it should not surprise you that the debate widened as it did. This is a very emotive subject. And I wouldn't call it a "sad debate" either. The "sinfulness"/"superior" argument is at the centre of this subject. Many businessess would like to discriminate if they could according to sexual preference, race, citizenship, etc, etc. It is because businesses are run by real people with their own list of preferences and prejudices and, of course,if they had their way, lots of things would be banned or stopped or persecuted. It is part of the business of law makers to protect the minority from the heavy hand of popular democracy. If there was free vote by people all over the world - judicial murder would prevail world-wide for "crimes" like being gay, being black, being "Other". Absolute democracy is not desirable, it leads to oppression. What matters is libewrty to do what I like if it does not interfere with the liberty of others. What I do in my bedroom is none of your business as is what you do in yours none of mine. We do not hurt each other. I hurt you though if I say your bedroom behaviour is offensive to my sensibilities whether I witness them or not, so you must be punished by the law and you cannot have job in my company and you cannot got to my church and you cannot vote and you cannot look after children and you cannot eat in the same restaurant and you cannot go to my club and you cannot lie on the same beach, etc, etc, etc.

Thoralbania supports anti-discrimination laws because the ignorant (yes, ignorant is right) majority do not distinguish between what is legitimately their business and what is not. If they don't like it personally that is enough to condemn it and have it banned. NO. Wiser, more enlightened and fairer minds must make those decisions. Liberty and personal freedom come before the will of the majority where the majority hss not legitimate say. It has no legitimate say where my behaviour does not touch thier lives.

what if pedophiles forced the government to recognize thier perversions
then it would be legal for them to go out and have sex with your 12 year old son or daughter! sometimes you have to draw a line, let homosexuals keep it to themselves dont force it on the rest

That is another law that adults will have to be punish for having sex with minors
The but if two man or two woman want to kiss or hold has in the street they will have to be aloud to do that and not have to hide there love for one another.

R/ President of the Teracknor Federation

sometimes you have to draw a line,

Sure you do, but why here? Do you really think that people have a list somewhere that says "full rights for gays: today" and "allow pedophiles to legally molest children: tomorrow"?
Do you think we're stupid? (don't answer that)
Do me a favour, and find me one post on this board from a sane individual who seriously suggests letting pedophiles legally molest children.

let homosexuals keep it to themselves dont force it on the rest

Oh, here we have the "boohoo, they're forcing it on us!" crying again.
Guess what, you live, stuff gets forced on you.
It's not like you'd never force stuff on us.
I walk in the city, and I see a church. What if it offends me? Do I go around yelling that the damn Christians are forcing their religion on me by having a church in my city? Off course not.

The Most Serene and Relaxed Country of Berkylvania whole-heartedly and with no misgiving endorses both equal/protected rights for homosexuals and marriage for same-gendered couples. Our rationale is as follows:

1. As our founding documents state, all citizens are guaranteed the right to “Follow Their Bliss So Long As It Harshes No One Else’s Buzz.” Therefore, on a purely moral standpoint (where “morality” is defined by the spirit of our founding documents), it is wrong to deny any percentage of the adult and consenting population rights, freedoms, responsibilities and protections based on a lifestyle, be that lifestyle a conscious choice, a genetic predisposition or any combination thereof.

2. As the beliefs of our nation promote the seeking of higher education throughout the life of a citizen, studies have shown that nearly 98% of our adult consenting population can be legitimately classified as “College Student”. As it is well known that college represents a time of “experimentation” for a majority of individuals, it is assumed that many of our citizens may not classify themselves as homosexuals, but rather as undergoing a prolonged experimental period. Therefore, such rulings would needlessly encourage Experimentalists to live a life of clandestine experimentation and neglect publishing their findings in an appropriate scientific journal and/or pornographic publication.

3. As it is a well-known fact that homosexuals have a higher percentage of disposable income which they then tend to invest in brownstone apartment buildings in economically-debilitated urban areas, our nation has recently begun programs and initiatives which channel a percentage of the funds raised by the taxation of our governmentally regulated recreational drug industrial base into a “Pro-Gay” message ("Uncle Berk Wants You To Take It For the Country!" and "Only You And 1.2 Million Other Screaming Queens Can Prevent Economic Decay, Only You" being two slogan examples), designed to increase regentrification of “urban decay areas” while at the same time generating additional growth in our Personal Grooming, Flannel, High Fashion and Leather Fetish Gear industries.

4. An added bonus of the “It’s Great To Be Gay!” initiative, we have noticed a decrease in surplus breeding, with most heterosexual (and family-oriented homosexual) couples and singles only having between one to three offspring, thus allowing a potentially cumbersome and heavily funded welfare system to be scaled back while still maintaining adequate care for families in need. Because of this surprising effect of the general campaign, a subsidiary campaign has been instigated, entitled “Explore Your Options” encouraging all adult citizens to embrace and enjoy alternative sexualities. While this initiative has been in effect, we have seen a marked drop off in divorces (although, to be fair, we have also noted a decrease in marriage license applications being filed in the first place) and a general increase in country-wide relaxation.

5. Finally, our scientists have advanced a theory that transfer of potentially homosexual genetic material will increase our country’s sense of good-taste, fashion and general fabulousness to an exponential degree.

In light of our nation’s traditionally permissive policies and pro-gay initiatives, any stance other than firm support for questions of this nature would be both hypocritical, immoral and just plain silly. In fact, we rarely oppose any social redefinition or group, except for stupid people. Stupid people we foster out to countries such as Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler, where they generally seem happier and we can keep them under continual surveillance and targeting by our nuclear arsenal.

Additionally, as a majority of our nation embraces Quakerism (obviously not the percentage that are in charge of deciding when it is advisable to “trim back” the nations of Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler), we realize that the revelation of Jesus Christ and God is an ongoing, continuous process. The Holy Father did not write a smash hit novel and a blockbuster sequel some two thousand or more years ago and then disappear from the religious circuit like a divine J.D. Salinger. To look at the Bible today as an unchanging document in light of current understanding regarding the variety of translations and political pressures put upon it over the years, is to imply that either God is dead or has abandoned his creation and has absolutely nothing else to tell us. A majority of our citizens find this an unacceptable belief (although we do treasure and revere our atheist, agnostics and varied religious persuasions as they force the majority to examine and question the beliefs and values they hold), we accept that the ongoing revelation will force us to constantly seek understanding of new messages from our Heavenly Father.

Finally, we have passed a resolution that as the nations of Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler all must have incredibly small penises, we cannot waste our time worry about them other than as a dumping ground for our less-gifted citizens.

what if pedophiles forced the government to recognize thier perversions
then it would be legal for them to go out and have sex with your 12 year old son or daughter! sometimes you have to draw a line, let homosexuals keep it to themselves dont force it on the rest

You are one of the ignorant people I referred to earlier. You really do not get it. I said that liberty to do whatever I like comes first, so long as I don't harm other people.

You also tie together being gay and being a paedophile - this is an age old piece of stupidity. I assume you are heterosexual and male - does this mean that you want to have sex with little girls? If you don't then that's OK, you fit in with a libertarian view of life. If you do, then my sort of government would not let you have sex with those little girls - you'd be locked away if you tried it matey. Little girls forced into sex do not know what is happening, they do not give their consent - you would be oppressing them.

Being gay means being aware of ones sexuality. Being sexual means that one probably wants to have sex. Wanting sex will be with the sex of ones choice. Excluding rape and paedophilia (a specialised form of rape), all other forms of sexual contact are consensual and so they are harmless to you and me. Let people do what they like together. Don't interfere with them, just because you would not want to do it.

Thoralbanian Government

I disagree with homosexuality. It should be banned. I would ban it. Problem Solved :x

The Most Serene and Relaxed Country of Berkylvania whole-heartedly and with no misgiving endorses both equal/protected rights for homosexuals and marriage for same-gendered couples. Our rationale is as follows:

1. As our founding documents state, all citizens are guaranteed the right to “Follow Their Bliss So Long As It Harshes No One Else’s Buzz.” Therefore, on a purely moral standpoint (where “morality” is defined by the spirit of our founding documents), it is wrong to deny any percentage of the adult and consenting population rights, freedoms, responsibilities and protections based on a lifestyle, be that lifestyle a conscious choice, a genetic predisposition or any combination thereof.

2. As the beliefs of our nation promote the seeking of higher education throughout the life of a citizen, studies have shown that nearly 98% of our adult consenting population can be legitimately classified as “College Student”. As it is well known that college represents a time of “experimentation” for a majority of individuals, it is assumed that many of our citizens may not classify themselves as homosexuals, but rather as undergoing a prolonged experimental period. Therefore, such rulings would needlessly encourage Experimentalists to live a life of clandestine experimentation and neglect publishing their findings in an appropriate scientific journal and/or pornographic publication.

3. As it is a well-known fact that homosexuals have a higher percentage of disposable income which they then tend to invest in brownstone apartment buildings in economically-debilitated urban areas, our nation has recently begun programs and initiatives which channel a percentage of the funds raised by the taxation of our governmentally regulated recreational drug industrial base into a “Pro-Gay” message ("Uncle Berk Wants You To Take It For the Country!" and "Only You And 1.2 Million Other Screaming Queens Can Prevent Economic Decay, Only You" being two slogan examples), designed to increase regentrification of “urban decay areas” while at the same time generating additional growth in our Personal Grooming, Flannel, High Fashion and Leather Fetish Gear industries.

4. An added bonus of the “It’s Great To Be Gay!” initiative, we have noticed a decrease in surplus breeding, with most heterosexual (and family-oriented homosexual) couples and singles only having between one to three offspring, thus allowing a potentially cumbersome and heavily funded welfare system to be scaled back while still maintaining adequate care for families in need. Because of this surprising effect of the general campaign, a subsidiary campaign has been instigated, entitled “Explore Your Options” encouraging all adult citizens to embrace and enjoy alternative sexualities. While this initiative has been in effect, we have seen a marked drop off in divorces (although, to be fair, we have also noted a decrease in marriage license applications being filed in the first place) and a general increase in country-wide relaxation.

5. Finally, our scientists have advanced a theory that transfer of potentially homosexual genetic material will increase our country’s sense of good-taste, fashion and general fabulousness to an exponential degree.

In light of our nation’s traditionally permissive policies and pro-gay initiatives, any stance other than firm support for questions of this nature would be both hypocritical, immoral and just plain silly. In fact, we rarely oppose any social redefinition or group, except for stupid people. Stupid people we foster out to countries such as Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler, where they generally seem happier and we can keep them under continual surveillance and targeting by our nuclear arsenal.

Additionally, as a majority of our nation embraces Quakerism (obviously not the percentage that are in charge of deciding when it is advisable to “trim back” the nations of Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler), we realize that the revelation of Jesus Christ and God is an ongoing, continuous process. The Holy Father did not write a smash hit novel and a blockbuster sequel some two thousand or more years ago and then disappear from the religious circuit like a divine J.D. Salinger. To look at the Bible today as an unchanging document in light of current understanding regarding the variety of translations and political pressures put upon it over the years, is to imply that either God is dead or has abandoned his creation and has absolutely nothing else to tell us. A majority of our citizens find this an unacceptable belief (although we do treasure and revere our atheist, agnostics and varied religious persuasions as they force the majority to examine and question the beliefs and values they hold), we accept that the ongoing revelation will force us to constantly seek understanding of new messages from our Heavenly Father.

Finally, we have passed a resolution that as the nations of Of_Portugal, Lomaks Empire and Adolfus Hitler all must have incredibly small penises, we cannot waste our time worry about them other than as a dumping ground for our less-gifted citizens.


Absolutely wonderful. What a fine piece of prose. Come on everyone - write back with praise for Berkylvania in huge spadefuls.

Yaaaaaaay!!!!!!

Government of Thoralbania

Absolutely wonderful. What a fine piece of prose. Come on everyone - write back with praise for Berkylvania in huge spadefuls.

Yaaaaaaay!!!!!!

Government of Thoralbania

::Huge spadeful of praise:: Thanks, Berkylvania; you're awesome! 8)

I disagree with homosexuality. It should be banned. I would ban it. Problem Solved :x

"I"? What about the rest of the population? You must be an absolute monarch and insist on having your own way. I'm right aren't I? I am.

Fine, but remember what happened to Charles I of England and Scotland

History can repeat itself.

Government of Thoralbania

The Empire of Youngtung is becoming very tired of all of these sexual acts and propostions so I am here to inform the world that the Empire will remain neutral throught all sexual acts.

The Empire of Youngtung is becoming very tired of all of these sexual acts and propostions so I am here to inform the world that the Empire will remain neutral throught all sexual acts.

No offense, but I never comprehended how people question something as trivial as sexuality. Here it's looked upon as just as natural as choosing the colour red over blue (but maybe not as less difficult.) It's just a preference and as long as no laws are being broken or toed then there is no problem in anything one does. It's not like gays are more proned to break a certain feasible law than a hetro.

Actually, what I've noticed in most (not all) people who absolutely disagree and/or refuse to make any tolerance to homosexuality have quite the ignorant and trifiling personality and view on just about everything. I've never seen an anti-homosexual proposal that showed a lot of acuity; but that's just how I see them. Grammatically, maturely, and intelligently.

I no way am I actually supporting gays. I only call them as I see them.

Wow, what a bunch of fnck-nuts frequent these boards. I'm not religious and you know what it makes things so much easier, for instance I can't see how two adults consenting to a sexual act with nobody getting hurt to be "a sin".

It's quite clear that the person who started this thread was having a laugh, I mean come on, nobody says "special people", it's a joke thread, that or the author is a complete cnut!

Hey, I'm popping in again, after reading some more of the thread. The extreme right-wings ("homosexuals are gay") and anti-Christians ("Catholics are bigots") are kinda driving me nuts, so I want to try to settle both scores with the following reading material.

First off, for those who haven't seen my posts on page 7 and 8, I'm Catholic, transitioning towards Pentecostal Christian.

Homosexuals may be born naturally, and there may be no way to change their sexuality, but they should at least try to fight it. I'm not saying sleep with the opposite sex (unless you're trying to have a baby); I'm saying, avoid sleeping with another member of your own sex, because that doesn't produce a child, but only fulfills your own sexual desires.

Throughout all Christianity, the basic concept is that life is a test. You go through it, avoid sin at all costs, and learn from your past mistakes. If when you die you are fully connected to God and have absorbed all of the teachings of Jesus, you spend your eternity in Heaven. If, however, your life is full of sin, and you generally don't care that it is, you will find yourself kicking around infested beehives in your afterlife.

Being that life is a test, everyone's lives have unique conditions to them. Homosexuals are dealt the worst card of the bunch, due to their general condemnation. In Christianity, whether you believe or not, God is testing these people harder than others to avoid temptations; gay sex and suicide being the most common. The best Christians live the hardest lives.

I honestly believe that a homosexual can get into Heaven. I also believe that a person can even have gay sex and still be let through the gates of Heaven, as long as he or she seeks forgiveness for the act.

I say this because NO ONE is without sin. Everyone writing on this message board has committed some sort of sin in their lifetime. That doesn't mean everyone is going to Hell. God gave us all free will, and we are all bound to make mistakes (the point of the Adam & Eve story). The trick is, you have to acknowledge the sins you commit and pray to God for forgiveness and guidance.

The above statements are only my beliefs based on the teachings of Jesus, and I will not enforce them on anyone. I state them so that people will better understand a true Christian approach to Homosexuality. If you belong to any particular faith, have a talk with your preacher about this. Any half-decent spiritual leader will be non-discriminating, and they'll know about this subject better than me.

Finally, putting religion aside, civil homosexual marriages should be permitted, on the grounds that people should have a freedom of choice. Just because the Church won't marry the couple, doesn't mean the State shouldn't have the right to.

Homosexuals may be born naturally, and there may be no way to change their sexuality, but they should at least try to fight it.

You are religious yet you say we should fight against our nature, the nature your god gave us?

I'm not saying sleep with the opposite sex (unless you're trying to have a baby); I'm saying, avoid sleeping with another member of your own sex, because that doesn't produce a child, but only fulfills your own sexual desires.

So sex that is not for procreation is sinful in your eyes? What actions are you taking to prevent post-menopausal women having sex? How about sterile people?

Throughout all Christianity, the basic concept is that life is a test. You go through it, avoid sin at all costs, and learn from your past mistakes.

Are you restricting your words to gay christians? By giving up religion I gave up sin.

If when you die you are fully connected to God and have absorbed all of the teachings of Jesus, you spend your eternity in Heaven. If, however, your life is full of sin, and you generally don't care that it is, you will find yourself kicking around infested beehives in your afterlife.

You have a screwed up sense of the afterlife.

Being that life is a test, everyone's lives have unique conditions to them. Homosexuals are dealt the worst card of the bunch, due to their general condemnation.

What if your god is not testing me but is testing your tolerance? Your general condemnation is where you are failing the test. Hope you are looking forward to kicking around infested beehives.

Finally, putting religion aside, civil homosexual marriages should be permitted, on the grounds that people should have a freedom of choice. Just because the Church won't marry the couple, doesn't mean the State shouldn't have the right to.

I do appreciate this. The State marries people, and some churches will witness it. Witnessing is not required of chruches

GREAT TO EAT!!!
GAYS- GREAT WORKERS GOOD PEOPLE, I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LETTING THEM RUN THE SOCIAL SIDE OF MY COUNTRY.
ALWAYS REMEBER THE SUITS AND STIFF UPPER LIP FACTION THINK THEY RULE BUT BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN THERE IS A GREATER/STRONGER WOMEN.

Post subject: FAGGOTS

And we generally love being referred to as faggots. :evil:

*laces up his size 12 steel toed work boots* :twisted:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

I disagree with homosexuality. It should be banned. I would ban it. Problem Solved :x

"I"? What about the rest of the population? You must be an absolute monarch and insist on having your own way. I'm right aren't I? I am.

Fine, but remember what happened to Charles I of England and Scotland

History can repeat itself.

Government of Thoralbania

Wait, what happened to Charles I? Was he the one who had his you-know-what chopped off in public?


Yes, absolutely. And, I bet it hurt a lot.

Government of Thorlabania.

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

And I'd get great pleasure from putting you through an industrial meat mincer - slowly - toes first.

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

:shock: O my GOD this is just pure evil are you mad do you know what will happen to are MILITARY alone by doing this, you have any idea of the madness you propose here. I have a question for you. What do you do to defend your country? Because I know form personal experience that there is a great deal of Military that defend this country and they are the best of the best and just happened to like people of the same sex and that dose not and I repeat DOSE NOT make the bad persons to “be dragged out in the street and get shot”. :twisted: May be you should be shot or you can come where I am and I can lunch you out of a Tomahawk or a 16 inch gun what ever you prefer in my work space I have all kinds of neat toys of destruction that you and the rest of the people watch on TV every time there is a WAR. So just stop for a second and look around you were ever you are, because there is a gay or lesbian some were around you at this moment. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t makes it bad. (I am not allowed to say my location is consider DoD secret 8) )

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
Member of the United Sates Naval Service

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

Just tell me what you think “live free and prosper…..or else” this is your motto if you take people to the streets and shot them I don’t think they can be FREE.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
Member of the United Sates Naval Service

If my idea is done, the only real military that would be lost would be the navy, i know this simply because i have family members in all the services and I've been comparing which services have the most gay people, and that is definitely, DEFINITELY the navy, but it does make me think, if we lost the navy, who would be our taxi service to go blow up other nations, wait, there's always the army with there shps, besides they do everything anyways, looks at who's in Iraq, the army, the only service i give credit to that's not doing alot is the marine corps, that's because they're ready and waiting in case Korea decides to make another war.

Just tell me what you think “live free and prosper…..or else” this is your motto if you take people to the streets and shot them I don’t think they can be FREE.

Well, how can we prosper if we have all these gay people having sex, what would we do for a next generation, i have come up with an aswer to this, and that is to simply cleanse the nation

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
Member of the United Sates Naval Service

If my idea is done, the only real military that would be lost would be the navy, i know this simply because i have family members in all the services and I've been comparing which services have the most gay people, and that is definitely, DEFINITELY the navy, but it does make me think, if we lost the navy, who would be our taxi service to go blow up other nations, wait, there's always the army with there shps, besides they do everything anyways, looks at who's in Iraq, the army, the only service i give credit to that's not doing alot is the marine corps, that's because they're ready and waiting in case Korea decides to make another war.

Just tell me what you think “live free and prosper…..or else” this is your motto if you take people to the streets and shot them I don’t think they can be FREE.

Well, how can we prosper if we have all these gay people having sex, what would we do for a next generation, i have come up with an aswer to this, and that is to simply cleanse the nation

Wow, all these gay people having sex is making every one else who is not, sterile? I've seen some really dumb people and their 'ideas' on this thread but you deserve a special award. You are special. A mix of false manliness, militarism and madness with a single digit IQ to boot.

Okay, check this out Christian types. And yes, I am somewhat religious to, so no preaching at me. You guys preach the word of the bible as the WORD of GOD, the LORD. These are LAWS that he sent to Moses.

10 Commandments.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

Alright. So there is one head honcho.

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Kinda like the first one. No serving other Gods. He gets the credit for what he made.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

Dont say things like ‘Goddamn it.’

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Go to Church on whatever your Sabbath day it. Or, just keep it holy. Make sure it is special.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

Be nice to Ma and Pa.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

Dont kill anybody.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

If you are married (to whomever) dont sleep with someone else.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

Dont jack your neighbors crap.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

Dont lie about your neighbor and say things you know arent true.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Dont sniff after your neighbors stuff.

The most IMPORTANT two, according to the big guys kid Jesus, is Love God, and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. Last time I checked, that meant all and unconditionally.

So dont worry about whether or not they are with other men (or other women) it is up to God to judge remember? If it truely is sin, then they will go to hell, in theory. I dont think so. It is all about the love man, LOooooooooooooooveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

Are there actually people out there who think homosexuals are more damaging to society than people like him?

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

Are there actually people out there who think homosexuals are more damaging to society than people like him?

Probably, but this was what I was refering to in my last post in this topic. Notice how with lack of leniency and rise of grotesque the intellects droop?

F#*k this gay ass shit! I dont know what is wrong with these people, i personally believe that every gay or bi person should be dragged out in the street and shot, it would solve alot of the governments problems and make the world a better place for all

Are there actually people out there who think homosexuals are more damaging to society than people like him?

Probably, but this was what I was refering to in my last post in this topic. Notice how with lack of leniency and rise of grotesque the intellects droop?

Yes - droopy intellects - I like that. Do you mean when some very stupid straight man with a tiny dick can't rise to the occasion and women laugh in his face, so he becomes all bitter and twisted and then wants to kill all the gay men who so obviously (and magnificently) can get it up? I really do think so. These twisted little would-be gay killers must really be upset when they tap into gay porn on the net and see what plenty of gay men look like naked. I reckon Mr Planet Middle Earth has a problem and, what is more, he knows it. It must be very difficult when you have just enough mental capacity to realise that you are intellectually, emotionally, physically and spiritually inferior to everyone else.

Poor weeny little guy.

Government of Thoralbania

(clears throat) Ladies and Gentlemen (and I may have to use that term loosely with some of you)... aren't we getting way off base of the topic in this flame war? Yes there is ignorance in the world, and prejudice. The UN's job is to find a way for both peace and justice to exist among member nations and letting our argument sink to childish levels certainly won't accomplish that goal.

Loresong's position stands firm: Let people do as they wish in their homes, and offer civil unions to those of non-heterosexual lifestyles.

Guyhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/liebe/love-smiley-037.gifguy

So as long as i'm not in the middle of these two guys..... I dont think there is any of my business what they get up to. Why would anyone care as much to think it should be outlawed or something? (p.s im not gay)

Sausgae donkeys, Uphill Gardeners, Fudge Packers, Arse Bandits, the list goes on. If society has so many nick names for these puftas, are thet really accepted?

why you sll getting so uptight?
For all you catholics ou there, why is it your buiness if some gay person goes to heaven or not

for all you homophopics, they aint hurting you, all of you just chill.

The govenrment of LeeHarvey feels that anal sex is for ass-holes...

The govenrment of LeeHarvey feels that anal sex is for ass-holes...

Bend over. :twisted:

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face. Take the whole gay thing for example. I am told by my religion, both that homosexuality is a sin and that I should be tolerant of others. I happen to take the tolerance point far more literally than the homosexuality = sin one because the first came straight from the lips of my Messiah whereas that was just a prophet or a disciple or some ancient king of Israel who said that about them.

In relation to that Christianity also says touching a dead pigs skin is a sin (football), you will be sent to hell if you committ the sin of planting different crops side by side (agricultural industry), and to work on the sabbath (Sunday)...well that of course is unheard of...last by not least...the bibles rights and/or obligations...I have but one to add to this...can I sum it up in saying: Will I get a good price for selling my direct female relatives as slaves (discrimination against females)? Some of you may be asking yourself "And his point is...", well my point is the bible is quite outdated....if everything in the bible was taken to heart I could stone a homeless man for entering the house of god (church) if he perhaps had dirty shoes or dirty feet.

The govenrment of LeeHarvey feels that anal sex is for ass-holes...

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/lachen/laughing-smiley-007.gif
Now that's funny..

Still using Christian views - not all of which I agree with - I reply.

Homosexuals may be born naturally, and there may be no way to change their sexuality, but they should at least try to fight it.

You are religious yet you say we should fight against our nature, the nature your god gave us?

God has given us free will, but Satan has given us many temptations, sex being the greatest in today's society.

I'm not saying sleep with the opposite sex (unless you're trying to have a baby); I'm saying, avoid sleeping with another member of your own sex, because that doesn't produce a child, but only fulfills your own sexual desires.

So sex that is not for procreation is sinful in your eyes? What actions are you taking to prevent post-menopausal women having sex? How about sterile people?

Are these post-menopausal women and sterile people married? I could be wrong, but there may be exceptions to the rule. If I understood this part of Christianity better, I'd elaborate further.

Throughout all Christianity, the basic concept is that life is a test. You go through it, avoid sin at all costs, and learn from your past mistakes.

Are you restricting your words to gay christians? By giving up religion I gave up sin.

Quite the contrary. By giving up Christianity you are committing sin, according to the First Commandment.

Other than that, I don't really mind if you're an aetheist or what, as long as you're a good person.

If when you die you are fully connected to God and have absorbed all of the teachings of Jesus, you spend your eternity in Heaven. If, however, your life is full of sin, and you generally don't care that it is, you will find yourself kicking around infested beehives in your afterlife.

You have a screwed up sense of the afterlife.

Hell is your worst nightmare, whatever that may be. I chose a specific example in an attempt to get the point across.

Being that life is a test, everyone's lives have unique conditions to them. Homosexuals are dealt the worst card of the bunch, due to their general condemnation.

What if your god is not testing me but is testing your tolerance? Your general condemnation is where you are failing the test. Hope you are looking forward to kicking around infested beehives.

If anything, He is testing both of us. I didn't say I condemned gays. I said that gays have to suffer from being condemed by the general public. I will admit I am homophobic in the sense that they sometimes scare me, but I'm trying to correct that part about myself by better understanding them. On that matter, I would like to thank you for helping me significantly.

Finally, putting religion aside, civil homosexual marriages should be permitted, on the grounds that people should have a freedom of choice. Just because the Church won't marry the couple, doesn't mean the State shouldn't have the right to.

I do appreciate this. The State marries people, and some churches will witness it. Witnessing is not required of chruches

True. My brother got married to his long-time fiancé by the state of Connecticut, without being witnessed by a church. She had gotten pretty sick beforehand, and wasn't covered under his insurance. They were married by the Roman Catholic Church a few months afterward to make it "official".

While I believe that the Catholic Church will never marry a gay couple, I do know that there is hope for these couples to legally marry in the US. This country is all about freedom, and if homosexuals want to marry, who is it going to hurt?

Besides, marriage greatly reduces promiscuity, and homosexuals and heterosexuals alike need to avoid that sort of behavior. If everyone only had one partner in their lives, the spread of STDs would come to a screeching halt.

I seriously think I am going to vomit if I see religious bias enter this debate again.

religious bias will show up every time someone decides to say "homosexuality is a sin"

Religious bias is a necessary of any discussion that debates the nature of sin.

Me being Liberal and somewhat leftist, my views toward the religious aspect (including, of course, my own upbringing) are kind of hostile, but religion has its place in society. If only it didn't scar people the way so many do.

Everyone is biased in some way or another.

Still using Christian views - not all of which I agree with - I reply.

Homosexuals may be born naturally, and there may be no way to change their sexuality, but they should at least try to fight it.

You are religious yet you say we should fight against our nature, the nature your god gave us?

God has given us free will, but Satan has given us many temptations, sex being the greatest in today's society.

Either god gave us our nature, and to deny it is to deny him, or satan gave us our nature, making us not subject to god. Which is it?

I'm not saying sleep with the opposite sex (unless you're trying to have a baby); I'm saying, avoid sleeping with another member of your own sex, because that doesn't produce a child, but only fulfills your own sexual desires.

So sex that is not for procreation is sinful in your eyes? What actions are you taking to prevent post-menopausal women having sex? How about sterile people?

Are these post-menopausal women and sterile people married? I could be wrong, but there may be exceptions to the rule. If I understood this part of Christianity better, I'd elaborate further.

Exceptions? Perhaps homosexuals who do not lie with a woman as they do with a man are also an exception

Throughout all Christianity, the basic concept is that life is a test. You go through it, avoid sin at all costs, and learn from your past mistakes.

Are you restricting your words to gay christians? By giving up religion I gave up sin.

Quite the contrary. By giving up Christianity you are committing sin, according to the First Commandment.

So thet puts me in the same group as most of the world who are not judeo-christian

Other than that, I don't really mind if you're an aetheist or what, as long as you're a good person.

Very condescending, unless you don't mind that good people who are gay should be allowed to marry. Murderers on death row are allowed. As are television contestants who prove the sanctity of marriage.

If when you die you are fully connected to God and have absorbed all of the teachings of Jesus, you spend your eternity in Heaven. If, however, your life is full of sin, and you generally don't care that it is, you will find yourself kicking around infested beehives in your afterlife.

You have a screwed up sense of the afterlife.

Hell is your worst nightmare, whatever that may be. I chose a specific example in an attempt to get the point across.

Sounds like I'll be surrounded by christians, whether I go to heaven or hell.

Being that life is a test, everyone's lives have unique conditions to them. Homosexuals are dealt the worst card of the bunch, due to their general condemnation.

What if your god is not testing me but is testing your tolerance? Your general condemnation is where you are failing the test. Hope you are looking forward to kicking around infested beehives.

If anything, He is testing both of us. I didn't say I condemned gays. I said that gays have to suffer from being condemed by the general public.

Exactly what I meant.

I will admit I am homophobic in the sense that they sometimes scare me,

Can you explain why? Is it just fear of the unknown? Despite what the religious right suggest we are not trying to make it compulsory

but I'm trying to correct that part about myself by better understanding them. On that matter, I would like to thank you for helping me significantly.

You are welcome

Finally, putting religion aside, civil homosexual marriages should be permitted, on the grounds that people should have a freedom of choice. Just because the Church won't marry the couple, doesn't mean the State shouldn't have the right to.

I do appreciate this. The State marries people, and some churches will witness it. Witnessing is not required of chruches

True. My brother got married to his long-time fiancé by the state of Connecticut, without being witnessed by a church. She had gotten pretty sick beforehand, and wasn't covered under his insurance. They were married by the Roman Catholic Church a few months afterward to make it "official".

As it should be. Some countries seperate the civil and religious aspects totally

While I believe that the Catholic Church will never marry a gay couple, I do know that there is hope for these couples to legally marry in the US. This country is all about freedom, and if homosexuals want to marry, who is it going to hurt?

Exactly. your marriage is not lessened because someone else joins the club.

Besides, marriage greatly reduces promiscuity, and homosexuals and heterosexuals alike need to avoid that sort of behavior. If everyone only had one partner in their lives, the spread of STDs would come to a screeching halt.

Yes, but remember that many heterosexual married people still have affairs and get STDs. Marriage cannot be seen the cure all of that.

Okay, I know I will probably go to hell for this (lmao) but think, JUST FOR A MOMENT...

F&$% God.

*gasps* :o

You people gotta understand, I seriously doubt a lot of homosexuals are thinking about God (I am sure a couple do though), so if you are going to shake your finger at them and tell them it is wrong, you have to do so on the same level theologically. Telling them it is bad because God said so aint going to mean shit to them if they dont believe in God.

What ever happened to that peace, happiness and that love shit anyways?

everyone should have same rights as everyone else...

I have not read most of the views on this subject. That is because I do not have to. All people are equal. There can be no exception to this most basic rule. If we are not unified, how then can we survive and prosper together?

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

Using a real world example of religion in goverment. the US constitution was basedd on scripture. NOT RELIGION. The founding fathers new that spirtuality was important but did not want to dictate religious beliefs.

Homosexual should have political rights. However I feel that the break down of moraluty is bad for national intrests and cannot back a proposal that dictates one way or another what my nation does or does not allow in the bedroom.

Using a real world example of religion in goverment. the US constitution was basedd on scripture. NOT RELIGION. The founding fathers new that spirtuality was important but did not want to dictate religious beliefs.

Depends on which founding father.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
-- Thomas Jefferson

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
-- James Madison

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

"As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli (signed under Washington, enacted under Adams)

Doesn't sound like they were about to base anything off of scripture. Nor do they seem very spiritual. Seems completely secular to me

Not true, ever read the constitution of the good ole' USA? Note how many refrences to god that are in there. Same goes for the bill of rights. The founding fathers were interested in spirituality, not religion. There is a diffrence.

Not true, ever read the constitution of the good ole' USA? Note how many refrences to god that are in there. Same goes for the bill of rights. The founding fathers were interested in spirituality, not religion. There is a diffrence.

preamble - none
article 1 - none
article 2 - none
article 3 - none
article 4 - none
article 5 - none
article 6 - none
article 7 - none

seems pretty secular to me

Actually they were deists from what I read and most legal documents of that era were often lousy with religious references to God and expression of dates as ".... the year of our lord..."

Don't legislate hate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
Member of the United Sates Naval Service

If my idea is done, the only real military that would be lost would be the navy, i know this simply because i have family members in all the services and I've been comparing which services have the most gay people, and that is definitely, DEFINITELY the navy, but it does make me think, if we lost the navy, who would be our taxi service to go blow up other nations, wait, there's always the army with there shps, besides they do everything anyways, looks at who's in Iraq, the army, the only service i give credit to that's not doing alot is the marine corps, that's because they're ready and waiting in case Korea decides to make another war.

Just tell me what you think “live free and prosper…..or else” this is your motto if you take people to the streets and shot them I don’t think they can be FREE.

Well, how can we prosper if we have all these gay people having sex, what would we do for a next generation, i have come up with an aswer to this, and that is to simply cleanse the nation

Cool I am glad that your family not you your family members are in the military. Butt you are incorrect the service with the most gay members is the U.S Marines not the NAVY. Ok I will give you that the U.S NAVY doesn’t go and fight yes butt next time you have to go an leave your family for 6 to 9 month with out having any contact let me know because it was hard for me, 4 hours to get your stuff and leave for 6 month nothing but water and CNN that's the life get a call after work to go back to work because you have to go and don’t now when you are going back. Well that good for a sea story if you want another I have 4 years of sea stories including fires, flooding, broodings and man over board rescues they are so much fun, but that is stuff that you don’t see on TV 3 or 4 in the mooring get shake by a rocket lunch 100 feet from were you sleep just a pleasant time that’s just life for a Person gay or strait in the U.S Navy. Don’t ever insult my Navy ever :evil:

R\ President of the Teracknor Federation
USN

I wonder if it matters what the basis of the constitution is? I acknowledge its laudable intent, but things need to be changed sometimes...

- Jordan

I wonder if it matters what the basis of the constitution is? I acknowledge its laudable intent, but things need to be changed sometimes...

- Jordan

I wonder if it matters what the basis of the constitution is? I acknowledge its laudable intent, but things need to be changed sometimes...

- Jordan

The position of Lupinster is firm and clear: Gay couples shall have no right to marriage and/or adoption.
My nation is prepared to go to war over this issue and will nuke any nation that intends to introduce such immoral legislation.

*launches a pre-emptive thermonuclear strike* :P

define supporting gays. If you mean that if we are fine with what they do in the bedroom, they can make their own choice. This is my thought. Gay marriage I do not support.

The position of Lupinster is firm and clear: Gay couples shall have no right to marriage and/or adoption.
My nation is prepared to go to war over this issue and will nuke any nation that intends to introduce such immoral legislation.

Fine, go ahead. Archaeus is a peaceful nation, but politically we're pretty formidable, and I'm certain that if you declare Jihad you'll find out the meaning of the word 'allies'.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

define supporting gays. If you mean that if we are fine with what they do in the bedroom, they can make their own choice. This is my thought. Gay marriage I do not support.

Why?

I'm not questioning your right to make your own laws, simply your rationale.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Ugh. Double post. See below.

If my idea is done, the only real military that would be lost would be the navy, i know this simply because i have family members in all the services and I've been comparing which services have the most gay people, and that is definitely, DEFINITELY the navy, but it does make me think, if we lost the navy, who would be our taxi service to go blow up other nations, wait, there's always the army with there shps, besides they do everything anyways, looks at who's in Iraq, the army, the only service i give credit to that's not doing alot is the marine corps, that's because they're ready and waiting in case Korea decides to make another war.



"... As if you could win a war without lesbians. Who's gonna read the map?" - Margaret Cho

Oh I love her... not too good for debates, but wonderful for a good laugh.

[quote=Stumblebums] The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face.


:evil: THE FREE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE MAY SAY WHAT THEY WILL TO YOUR FACE OR BEHIND IT REGARDING YOUR RELIGION. YOU MUST LEARN TO DEAL WITH THIS. IF YOU CANNOT, YOUR FAITH IS NOT STRONG.

THE FREE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT RESTRAIN YOURSELF TO ANY RELIGION, RATHER BE FREEE WITHIN YOURSELF. CAST ASIDE THE CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY, NAMELY RLIGION, AND BE WHO YOU DEEM YOURSELF TO BE.

A WISE MAN ONCE SAID: "TRY EVERYTHING ONCE, EXCEPT FOR INCEST AND BREAKDANCING"

THE FREE PEOPLE ENDORSE GAY RIGHTS.

The marriage thing itself is something to be looked at but then again, not many gays are interested in the 'holy matrimony' version or the hypocritical religions which hold this social institution hostage, but simply legal standing.

I believe I have a right to not have my religion insulted. If you think Christianity is hypocritical, that's fine, but keep it to yourself or a group of people who agree with you and are not offended by it. Hell! I think it can be hypocritical at times, but I just don't want that shoved in my face.


:evil: THE FREE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE MAY SAY WHAT THEY WILL TO YOUR FACE OR BEHIND IT REGARDING YOUR RELIGION. YOU MUST LEARN TO DEAL WITH THIS. IF YOU CANNOT, YOUR FAITH IS NOT STRONG.

THE FREE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT RESTRAIN YOURSELF TO ANY RELIGION, RATHER BE FREEE WITHIN YOURSELF. CAST ASIDE THE CONSTRAINTS OF SOCIETY, NAMELY RLIGION, AND BE WHO YOU DEEM YOURSELF TO BE.

A WISE MAN ONCE SAID: "TRY EVERYTHING ONCE, EXCEPT FOR INCEST AND BREAKDANCING"

THE FREE PEOPLE ENDORSE GAY RIGHTS.

Umm...

Please, stop shouting!

Look at it this way. How many capital letters are there in the average sentence? Not that many, in general. So when you're only typing in small letters, you're making far less mistakes than when you type in capitals.

I know, I'm nit-picking, but please - it just looks out of place!

- Jordan

I've got nothing against gays or their marriages or people writing in capital letters for that matter but I don't think it's fair for gay or lesbian couples to have or adopt children, that is against nature which is just asking for trouble.
P.S And by have I mean through IVF or some other non-natural form

I've got nothing against gays or their marriages or people writing in capital letters for that matter but I don't think it's fair for gay or lesbian couples to have or adopt children, that is against nature which is just asking for trouble.
P.S And by have I mean through IVF or some other non-natural form

If you're so hot about doing things the natural way, why don't you go live in a cave?

In my country (Belgium) gay people can get married, the next step is the right to adopt a child.

I respect this law and I think it's a very good law. So in our country gay people can also get married.

Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Constitutional Monarchy of Ganchelkas, on behalf of His Majesty, Geerhardt I, King of Ganchelkas