NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe everyone should be allowed to love the person she/he loves and everyone who thinks that homosexuality is evil or something is a norrow-minded nazi.
(I hope this will be an argumentative thread and not an everyone-agrees-thread.)

Homosexuality rules. As I've said several times, once you go gay, you never stray.

is homosexuality bad?

NO


next question

Yes, horribly evil. GAY MARRIAGE CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, PEOPLE! WAKE UP!

No, to be serious, I can't see anything wrong with homosexuality. Me being lesbian myself might have a tiny bit to do with that.

If homosexuality is bad, then some of my best friends must be really evil! :upyours:
Seriously though, it can't be bad 'cause I've had way to mach fun checking out women with my lesbian friend! :D It give a whole different perspective! :eek:

here we go again with the is homosexuality wrong threads....

everybodys definition of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral are different

so there can be no definitive answer, just a couple of people arguing for eternity. just like the last thread.

and no, i dont think its wrong. definitely dont think its wrong.

...oh god no. *ducks* Get ready for a flame fest - I'm calling 9-1-1, and hoping the fire department can get here soon enough...

No, to be serious, I can't see anything wrong with homosexuality. Me being lesbian myself might have a tiny bit to do with that.

Mon semblable, ma soeur! :fluffle:

no

Not at all.

being gay is amazing, its so much fun, and u hav more money aparantly

being gay is amazing, its so much fun, and u hav more money aparantly

What, I missed out on the recruitment money? Damn.

afraid so, had to queue for ages though so i wouldnt worry about it ;)

No.

hell no who's business is it of anybody's to try and dictate what a person can or cannot do with their body unless they are forcing themselves on others such as rape. Homosexuality should be treated the same as all other sexualities just because the majority of people don't take part in it doesn't make it wrong.

afraid so, had to queue for ages though so i wouldnt worry about it ;)

And I thought being gay meant never having to queue.

Being Gays great, you ahve fun, you earn more on average and you ahve a really great boyfreind who loves you... though the last bits just mine YOU CANT HAVE HIM !!!

For the sake of argument I'm going to say that gays will burn in hell. If you burn in hell you must have done something to deserve it. Anything you do that deserves burning in hell must be revolting.

If monotheistic religions turn out to be true then this may well be the case whether I'm serious or not.

no of course not. my boyfriend's bisexual and if anyone ever gave him shit about it i'd break their effing face(violence solves everything).

I personally find nothing wrong with homosexuality...it's natural, for (Deity of choice)'s sake! But I'm sure those on this forum who disagree will arrive shortly...

(Dons his FlameMaster3000 flame helmet)

Being Gays great, you ahve fun, you earn more on average and you ahve a really great boyfreind who loves you... though the last bits just mine YOU CANT HAVE HIM !!!

I already did. :eek:

:p

I believe everyone should be allowed to love the person she/he loves and everyone who thinks that homosexuality is evil or something is a norrow-minded nazi.
(I hope this will be an argumentative thread and not an everyone-agrees-thread.)
Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

I think religion is morally wrong and reprehensible. I have no hate for religious people themselves. Except those who are douches and try to get all up in my business or face.

Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

Well I think heterosexuality is wrong and reprehensible. Deal with that. It's not so nice being the one told you're goin' to hell.

PS: You are a nazi.

Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

Because I have a religion, I have to believe that a natural state of being is wrong?

Do you also think that menstruation is wrong?

Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

I think religion is morally wrong and reprehensible. I have no hate for religious people themselves. Except those who are douches and try to get all up in my business or face.

This is why these threads are completely fucking pointless. No one is ever going to see eye to eye on this issue. There are fundamental differences in peoples' morals and they simply will not change. All we can do is sit here and say "God hates you!" and "No he doesn't!", or "He doesn't exist!". There's no practical purpose in having an argument over whether it's "good" to be homosexual and it's not even slightly intellectually stimulating after the 20th thread doing it.

Because I have a religion, I have to believe that a natural state of being is wrong?

Do you also think that menstruation is wrong?

There's no proof that it is natural to be gay. By natural I mean based in genetics.

Do you also think that menstruation is wrong?
Oh man, I bet if you menstruate incorrectly that's morally reprehensible too. We need to bring back the menstrual huts if we want to get back on the right track.

This thread is making me want to look for an excuse to complain about someone riding one's ass about something.
For semi-obvious reasons.
:D

I think homosexuality is the product of a misguided childhood and even some skewed views on life. I think people need to wake up! Homosexuality has never been, is not, and will never be natural. Although I believe homosexuality is a decision and not a condition, I do believe that it is a choice that everyone should have.

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Homos :headbang:
,but if they're happy then I will not stop them, I just won't encourage them.
:fluffle:

I don't see how being born with a certain sexual arousal related area in your brain is wrong. It's certainly nothing the individuel has done wrong. Say it is is like saying "being black is morally wrong".

Because I have a religion, I'm a nazi? I think homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. That being said, I have no hate for homosexuals themselves.

Religion is as much an excuse for homophobia as it is for sectarian hatred, human slavery or the stoning to death of female rape victims.

There's no proof that it is natural to be gay. By natural I mean based in genetics.

You have no concept of biology, do you?

(a) There is quite a bit of evidence that sexuality, much like skin color, is influenced by genetics.

(b) Something does not need to have a direct genetic cause to be natural.

I think homosexuality is the product of a misguided childhood and even some skewed views on life. I think people need to wake up! Homosexuality has never been, is not, and will never be natural. Although I believe homosexuality is a decision and not a condition, I do believe that it is a choice that everyone should have.

Damn all those Bonobos chimps, dolphins, whales, walruses, mice, rats, dogs, cats, cattle, flamingos, swans, squirrels, elephants, giraffes, etc, etc, etc for their misguided childhoods and skewed views on life.

I don't see how being burn with a certain sexual arousal related area in your brain is wrong. It's certainly nothing the individuel has done wrong. Say it is is like saying "being black is morally wrong".

There's no proof that it is natural to be gay. By natural I mean based in genetics.

There's no proof that it is natural to be gay. By natural I mean based in genetics.
is there any genetic proof to suggest that its natural to be heterosexual?

There's no proof that it is natural to be gay. By natural I mean based in genetics.

What is the outside source that you think makes up sexuality (of all types, since no one sexuality has evidence of more basis in genetics than another) then, pray tell?

There's something OTHER than homosexuals? You mean all the straight married guys I pick up at the truck stop aren't really homosexual? Oh my!

Why don't you all just leave us alone, go away, and don't worry about it. If you are straight, we don't want you........just your sons! :p

is there any genetic proof to suggest that its natural to be heterosexual?


o.O Where's a scientist when you really need them!? I want to know... *oh so curious* Btw, I love being a lesbian, wouldn't have it any other way! Quite literally! ^^

This thread is making me want to look for an excuse to complain about someone riding one's ass about something.
For semi-obvious reasons.
:D

You'll never need an excuse for it with me!

Personally, I think is bad. I respect them as human beings but I think its wrong. Thats my opinion and I am not changing it. Sorry if I offend you but that is the way I feel. If you dont like it, too bad.

o.O Where's a scientist when you really need them!? I want to know... *oh so curious* Btw, I love being a lesbian, wouldn't have it any other way! Quite literally! ^^

Right here.

There is no specific genetic locus that has been identified as definitely affecting sexuality.

There is some evidence that a trait which increases fertility in women may contribute to male homosexuality, but that is still highly speculative.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that "natural" only refers to "directly genetic" is idiotic.

Personally, I think is bad. I respect them as human beings but I think its wrong. Thats my opinion and I am not changing it. Sorry if I offend you but that is the way I feel. If you dont like it, too bad.

Do you think that menstruation is bad?

Do you think that erections are bad?

Do you think that laughing is bad?

I don't believe being gay is bad, or evil, or whatever.

But sometimes, in my encounters with gays, I sometimes think Freud was correct in his diagnosis that homosexuality may very well be a kind of developmental disorder.

is there any genetic proof to suggest that its natural to be heterosexual?
Only if insemination by hand can be genetically proven to be unnatural. We're tampering with nature already by helping the genetically weak survive and have babies, so that argument can be considered entirely moot as far as the tired old debate about homosexuality is concerned.

Personally, I think is bad. I respect them as human beings but I think its wrong. Thats my opinion and I am not changing it. Sorry if I offend you but that is the way I feel. If you dont like it, too bad.

What would be so bad about it?

I like cock. No, I love cock. If you don't like it, too bad.

You have no concept of biology, do you?

(a) There is quite a bit of evidence that sexuality, much like skin color, is influenced by genetics.

There's only circumstantial evidence so far. Major 'proofs' that this is so in the past have since had doubt cast on them. There's no way to say whether it is natural or not at this time. Don't try to present it as such.

(b) Something does not need to have a direct genetic cause to be natural.

Genes determine our characteristics. I don't know if that covers individual parts of the brain being larger or smaller then normal (the strongest evidence being gay being natural). If it does then I'd assume that genes extend to determining every other characteristic of your body that you are born with. Anything that isn't genetic is a result of social conditioning.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that "natural" only refers to "directly genetic" is idiotic.

Natural in biology is something that isn't a result of conditioning.

is there any genetic proof to suggest that its natural to be heterosexual?

lol try the fact that the human reproductive organs are designed that way

Genes determine our characteristics. I don't know if that covers individual parts of the brain being larger or smaller then normal (the strongest evidence being gay being natural). If it does then I'd assume that genes extend to determining every other characteristic of your body that you are born with. Anything that isn't genetic is a result of social conditioning.

You're obviously not a human biologist or a doctor.

You're obviously not a human biologist or a doctor.

Care to expand on that?

There's only circumstantial evidence so far. Major 'proofs' that this is so in the past have since had doubt cast on them. There's no way to say whether it is natural or not at this time. Don't try to present it as such.

Until we have a specific gene and knock it out in mice, circumstantial evidence is all we have. You would be surprised how much biology is based on circumstantial evidence.

However, your constant suggestion that natural = genetic is idiotic, to say the least. There is overwhelming evidence that it is natural, considering that it occurs in just about all mammals and most bird species that have been studied thus far.

Genes determine our characteristics.

To a point.

Anything that isn't genetic is a result of social conditioning.

Wow, third grade biology?

lol try the fact that the human reproductive organs are designed that way
Then tell me why men have a g-spot inside their asses.

I don't believe being gay is bad, or evil, or whatever.

But sometimes, in my encounters with gays, I sometimes think Freud was correct in his diagnosis that homosexuality may very well be a kind of developmental disorder.

This theory has in retrospect been proven false by successive psychological examinations revealing homosexuals to be in every way as mature as heterosexuals. Better luck next time.

Right here.

There is no specific genetic locus that has been identified as definitely affecting sexuality.

There is some evidence that a trait which increases fertility in women may contribute to male homosexuality, but that is still highly speculative.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that "natural" only refers to "directly genetic" is idiotic.


Wow, talk about quick response. Any chance you know the winning lotto numbers? :D I don't see why people can't just let this sort of thing be. We are what we are. I don't bug heteros, I expect them not to bug me. Of course, there is the gay/lesbian marriage thing...If Bush gets his way, well we won't go there :P I just hope that he walks into a wall and gives himself a frontal lobotomy, as soon as possible. (j/k...sort of) :eek:

lol try the fact that the human reproductive organs are designed that way

That only demonstrates that heterosexual sex has to do with procreation. It says nothing about attraction to other human beings.

Wow, third grade biology?

No. What's your definition.

lol try the fact that the human reproductive organs are designed that way
whats that got to do with sexual attraction?

Any chance you know the winning lotto numbers?

I wish.

I don't see why people can't just let this sort of thing be. We are what we are.

You people? You mean mostly straight people who fully support homosexuals?

Notice that my entire argument has been "we are what we are".

The area of the brain relating to sex in a male is bigger than that in a females. If you scan the brain of a homosexual male you will find they have a sexual area of their brain that appears female, ect. Of course, this doesn't mean that gay men are just men with women's brains as behaviour related to the different sexes is not exclusive to this area.
The current belief is that since the formation of these structures occure in the womb, it must be lated to hormonal anomillies within the womb. Hormones are partly used to cause a feotus to develope in either a male or female direction (humans are all actually physically female at the very early stages of development before this kicks in - if you are guy, this will explain why have ridge of skin between your legs, which is actually the remaining evidence of something being closed over, ahem). If the right amount of hormones failed to reach the brain of a male or some reason, its sexual development might be kept at a female state, similairly if more than the usual amount reach a female brain, the sexual area of the brain might be progressed to a more male state. It is important to note that there is no 'one or the other' status that there can be any degree of variation between the two states, explaing why so many homosexuals suffer confusion about their sexuality and also the occurence of bisexuals.

That only demonstrates that heterosexual sex has to do with procreation. It says nothing about attraction to other human beings.

like i said, i stand by Freud

there's nothing wrong with being gay, but many factors point to it most likely being a result of some sort of upset in a person's development, or it is just their mental configuration, just like some people are schizophrenics or manic-depressives

Lets face it, the notion that homosexuality is a product of social conditioning is little more than abunch of reactionary claptrap, all to convenient for conservatives who like to write it off as nothing but just another personality trait.

I believe everyone should be allowed to love the person she/he loves and everyone who thinks that homosexuality is evil or something is a norrow-minded nazi.
(I hope this will be an argumentative thread and not an everyone-agrees-thread.)
What about bestiality?

No. What's your definition.

All sorts of things can affect our traits. Take, for instance, skin color. Genetics only determines that to a point. Past that, it has to do with hormones, UV exposure, chemicals, etc. It has nothing at all to do with social conditioning.

Sexuality is most likely, as most of our traits, partially determined by genetics. Beyond that, it is hormones (including exposure in utero to hormones - which has been pretty objectively shown to have an effect) and other environmental effects.

You people? You mean mostly straight people who fully support homosexuals?Notice that my entire argument has been "we are what we are".


"We are what we are" goes for everyone...in my book at least. If you want to be gay, thats great! If you want to be straight, have fun! People should be allowed to live their lives any way they wish, as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I don't see how sexual orientation (in either direction) is harmful, therefor, I don't understand why people get so riled up about someone choosing a direction that is not "socially or religiously acceptable" o.O

My opposition to gay marriage and adoption stems not from my religious beliefs (I am a Christian) but from the fact that studies have shown Gay relationships between adult males last on average 2 weeks. I have hardly ever seen a gay relationship which has been longterm.
Why would anyone crave to marry after that little time together, except for Britney Spears?

"We are what we are" goes for everyone...in my book at least. If you want to be gay, thats great! If you want to be straight, have fun! People should be allowed to live their lives any way they wish, as long as it's not directly harming someone else. I don't see how sexual orientation (in either direction) is harmful, therefor, I don't understand why people are so against it. o.O

I don't either, which is why I try to get rid of the misconceptions they use to support their bigotry.

The way I see it, humans are just that - humans. Homosexual humans are humans, as are heterosexual humans. We are all humans, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or anything else. As such, I feel that we all deserve equal freedom to believe what we want, love who we want, and whatever else within reason.

BTW, since others have chosen to state their orientation, I'm straight.

My opposition to gay marriage and adoption stems not from my religious beliefs (I am a Christian) but from the fact that studies have shown Gay relationships between adult males last on average 2 weeks. I have hardly ever seen a gay relationship which has been longterm.

I hate to break it to you, but most straight relationships don't last that long either. It is those which *do* that generally lead to marriage.

Why would anyone crave to marry after that little time together, except for Britney Spears?

:D

Actually, using the length of a relationship is menaingless. If both decide to split up and move on after a short while, isn't that better than being together for years and going behind each others' backs and cheating on each other?

What about bestiality?

???if you want to play it that way, what about interacial relationships? what about inter-religion relationships, there has been a point in human history where these things were as taboo as gay relationships are now.

Homosexuality is so good, I decided to become one yesterday!

I mostly agree with Bubania. I don't believe homosexuality is unnatural...I also don't believe that murder is unnatural. I believe that homosexuality is a choice, but I don't believe I am infallible, so I don't expect to convince anyone any more than I expect anyone to convince me...since I wouldn't accept a conclusion either way without reviewing more evidence on both sides than I think is worth my time. I believe that homosexuality is wrong...I also believe that being a fan of the University of North Carolina Tar Heels is wrong. My best friend is bisexual and some of my other best friends are homosexual. I might be considered borderline bisexual myself by some people. I believe that hating someone for his or her sexuality is narrow-minded and idiotic. I also believe that hating someone for believing homosexuality is morally wrong is JUST AS BIGOTED as hating someone for being a homosexual (hating someone for hating homosexuals--note, I say hating homosexuals, not hating homosexuality--is a different story). For what it's worth I believe that thinking lesbians are hawt (which I do) is as wrong as being homosexual in the first place. I think it is every individual's right to choose his or her sexuality and to choose whether or not to believe any given sexuality is wrong. I believe that passing laws to protect the rights of homosexuals (specifically) is ridiculous. I believe that repealing laws that infringe on the rights of homosexuals is reasonable. I believe that any laws that favor married heterosexual couples over homosexual couples should be brought under close scrutiny, although I also believe it is possible that there may be some such laws that are not unfair...can't think what they would be these days, but it seems a bit too hasty to dismiss the possibility. I believe that it should be the unquestioned right of any RELIGIOUS institution not to recognize unions of any given sexuality, despite the fact that I believe all such unions should have equal LEGAL validity. I believe that the word "gay" should have nothing to do with sexuality. I believe that the word "queer" should have nothing to do with sexuality. I believe that calling someone who believes homosexuality is wrong but who doesn't hate homosexuals themselves a "nazi" is essentially equivalent to calling a homosexual a rapist. I had some other things that I was going to include, but I've forgotten them, so I will finish up by saying that I believe that anyone who hates me for any of my opinions mentioned above: (A) cannot claim to do so in the name of individuals' rights without hypocrisy and (B) shouldn't complain if I choose to hate them in return for being a narrow-minded bigot. Although I doubt I will...I don't hate easily.

There we go, that should upset at least a few people...I do apologize for how unorganized it is, it was nearly stream-of-consciousness. Regardless, go to town. [puts on flame-retardant codpiece]

as far as I am concerned if any kind of sexual act is between two consenting adults and they are causing no lasting physical harm (for those who like to be spanked ;) ) then thats fine by me - just because I am either not psychologically geared towards my own gender or certain types of sexual act does not mean that I think they are wrong

:D

Actually, using the length of a relationship is menaingless. If both decide to split up and move on after a short while, isn't that better than being together for years and going behind each others' backs and cheating on each other?
You have to THINK ABOUT TEH CHILDREN!!!111!!11!!!half

???if you want to play it that way, what about interacial relationships? what about inter-religion relationships, there has been a point in human history where these things were as taboo as gay relationships are now.

Actually, all forms of "taboo" relationships were a lot more accepted in ancient times than they are today. We've taken a huge step backwards since the fall of Rome in this regard

Well, you do, don't you? I mean, thats the whole issue of adoption...

So many children are mistreated and abused. It shouldn't matter who the parents are, as long as they care for their children properly. I still fail to see how sexual orientation falls into play when it comes to raising kids.

Well, you do, don't you? I mean, thats the whole issue of adoption...
I'd say a kid adopted by a well adjusted homosexual couple is much better off than a kid born to a married couple who abuse alcohol or beat it.

My opposition to gay marriage and adoption stems not from my religious beliefs (I am a Christian) but from the fact that studies have shown Gay relationships between adult males last on average 2 weeks. I have hardly ever seen a gay relationship which has been longterm.

People generally tend not to get married or adopt children after knowing eachother a mere two weeks. Such a baseless argument as that only serves to expose your latent homophobia.

nothing wrong with being gay whatsoever, but i will say that no one is born gay.....

Thats like saying you are born a Nirvana fan, read some research from this field and you will realise how ridiculous claiming people are born gay is..

There are correlational trends linking genes, physical anomalies, hormonal variations etc to homosexuality, but they are by no means causal in thier relationship.

This is fact, it is impossible to be born anything with respect to opinions, orientations likes dislikes etc....

Genetics play a part, as they do in everything, however its not the case that anyone is born gay...



*** Presume we have found the 'gay gene' firstly i should point out that in this hypothetical situation there would be gay people without the 'gay gene' and straight people with the 'gay gene'

Now, purely hypothetically take a man who grew up to be gay, this man would have 'the gay gene'... however if this same man was put into a dark box at birth, recieving food and water through a tube then he would develop no sexuality at all, is he gay?

Similarly to say people are born gay means that by default straight people are born straight, poedophiles are born poedophiles etc...

This concept goes further in that if you can say someomone is born gay you can say someone is born skitzophrenic


Bit rantish but so many people believe this myth and its just bs

As would I. However, this doesn't discount the issue of short termism among gay partners compared to heterosexual adult partners.

Yes, but if they are in it only for the short term they won't adopt anyway. Short term does not equal bad in all cases.

A full 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, which is a lot more time consuming, draining, and painful for those involved than a relationship ended in two weeks.

People shouldn't have to be having debates over this anyway, take away the bigotry and prejudice and it is clear that gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else. People who see gay rights as something funny are on a level with the loathesome politicians who recognize it as a useful ideological football.

As would I. However, this doesn't discount the issue of short termism among gay partners compared to heterosexual adult partners.
Well, when you're not allowed to marry the one you love, breaking up is a matter of packing bags and leaving instead of bringing in lawyers and dividing the shared stuff and all that jizz. All people are lazy that way. Being married means legally being responsible for one another. If gay people are denied that, who can blame them for using the freedom they have?

Alright. I have some an odd opinion that's probably going to make me get slapped by both the left and the right. You ready to hear this one?

They say 1 out of 10 people is homosexual, which seems to hold some truth to it. However, I also say that out of the same 10 people, only two of them are truly straight. The other seven is bisexual. By default, the natural process of human sexuality IS bisexual with a slight preference for the opposite sex (primarly for procreation) and that elements of society repress the bisexual nature that truly exists within the indivdual. The coin isn't one-sided either. When an individual even shows the slightest attraction for the same sex, because of elements in society, they instantly see themselves as homosexual even though they've been aroused and had sex with the opposite sex before.

Wait! Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, let me offer this as a cop-out: There's still one homosexual for every 10 people and 2 straight people for every 10 people. What I'm saying is that there is a few people that are truely disgusted by homosexual/heterosexual activity. It just isn't as many people as you think.

NOW, you can throw your wine bottles at the computer.

Why does short term not equal bad? Why should homosexual couples be shown favouritism by adoption agents?
The post you replied to said nothing about showing favouritism to homosexual couples, nor about short-termism not being bad.
Try again.

EDIT:
Oops, It DOES say short term does not always equal bad!
Sorry about that...

Why does short term not equal bad? Why should homosexual couples be shown favouritism by adoption agents?


A) People have short termed relationships...thats normal.
B) People who wish to, and find a compatible partner, tend to settle down with them
C) How can someone make such a broad statement (gay people have short relationships)? Where is your proof?

Oh, and gays aren't asking for favoritism...just equal rights.

NOW, you can throw your wine bottles at the computer.


I prefer to recycle mine ;)

Why does short term not equal bad? Why should homosexual couples be shown favouritism by adoption agents?

No one should be shown favoritism. Sexual orientation should play no part in the adoption process.

Short term is alright if it's just a minor relationship. Sometimes, people want to meet others for a while and move on. It's part of finding the person they can enter a long term relationship with as well.

:mp5: I think the only bad thing is when homosexuals have children because the usually :mp5: not always :mp5: grow up spitful if this is avoidabul then that is cool :mp5:

Hmm...I haven't read all 6 pages, just the 1st two and the last one. So far, it seems religion, genetics and parenthood (and probably 'marriage') have been touched on.

I have my own theories on the genetic side, but if it really is as simple as a gene chosing skin or hair colour, then there must be a way to reverse or correct it. I believe homosexuality is actually a genetic defect, much like any other, except as it's such a taboo subject no-one will discuss becoming 'cured' because it infringes on human rights apparently. Such is democracy. Unfortunately, I consider this to be a little short sighted.

I am not religious, and don't actually believe in 'god' as people know it, or heaven/hell etc... I prefer to examine things scientifically.

The science I see in homosexuality is that the human race is meant to procreate naturally through the organs each gender has evolved. i.e. a male with a female, (or vice versa, lest i challenge political correctness here..) in order to continue the species.

Only now is it that artificial insemination, surrogate mothers etc alters everyones perception of this biological fact to the point where I would be considered wrong to state it.

The point is, no-ones personality is necessarily in question (unless sexuality is forced upon you, which I sometimes find offensive) only the pen and paper results.

Although it is unlikely homosexuality is widespread enough to set alarm bells with the natural continuation of the human race, I still think it's a point of discussion no-one else appears to bring up. It's not natural. Men cannot conceive with men, and women cannot with women. Only artificially - a matter I personally believe should be banned.

We are bascially encouraging a genetic defect, and as with all gene pools, if it's left unchecked, who knows what will happen in the future.

But, I rarely speak to anyone who cares, so I imagine the days of the heterosexual are numbered....

Oh, and gays aren't asking for favoritism...just equal rights.

That isn't universally true. Which tends to hurt the gay rights movement.

Care to expand on that?

Because you are completely erroneous in your, apparently, limited knowledge of genetics and human biology.

The science I see in homosexuality is that the human race is meant to procreate naturally through the organs each gender has evolved. i.e. a male with a female, (or vice versa, lest i challenge political correctness here..) in order to continue the species.

Only now is it that artificial insemination, surrogate mothers etc alters everyones perception of this biological fact to the point where I would be considered wrong to state it.

People have been using contraceptives since the dawn of humankind. QED.

That isn't universally true. Which tends to hurt the gay rights movement.

Examples please

Alright. I have some an odd opinion that's probably going to make me get slapped by both the left and the right. You ready to hear this one?

They say 1 out of 10 people is homosexual, which seems to hold some truth to it. However, I also say that out of the same 10 people, only two of them are truly straight. The other seven is bisexual. By default, the natural process of human sexuality IS bisexual with a slight preference for the opposite sex (primarly for procreation) and that elements of society repress the bisexual nature that truly exists within the indivdual. The coin isn't one-sided either. When an individual even shows the slightest attraction for the same sex, because of elements in society, they instantly see themselves as homosexual even though they've been aroused and had sex with the opposite sex before.

Wait! Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, let me offer this as a cop-out: There's still one homosexual for every 10 people and 2 straight people for every 10 people. What I'm saying is that there is a few people that are truely disgusted by homosexual/heterosexual activity. It just isn't as many people as you think.

NOW, you can throw your wine bottles at the computer.


You are 100% correct apart from the 2 in 10 and 7 in 10 thing whatever it was, thats just speculative but other than that you have hit the nail on the head

Because you are completely erroneous in your, apparently, limited knowledge of genetics and human biology.

I was looking for your explanation not another condescending remark. You may feel better futher insulting my perceived lack of intellect, but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Considering how fast the human population grows, is procreation really a huge concern? Don't we have enough parentless children in orphanages/foster homes? Maybe we should take care of the kids we already have before worrying about how the next generation will arrive. It's not like everyone is turning gay. :rolleyes:

Actually, all forms of "taboo" relationships were a lot more accepted in ancient times than they are today. We've taken a huge step backwards since the fall of Rome in this regard

im talking last hundred years, but your right....aand what came in after the fall of the empire....dark ages......most powerful institution in the dark ages?

...

Ahh, Social Darwinism. Good to see you again!

My opposition to gay marriage and adoption stems not from my religious beliefs (I am a Christian) but from the fact that studies have shown Gay relationships between adult males last on average 2 weeks. I have hardly ever seen a gay relationship which has been longterm.

O wow...so my partner and I should have broken up over a year ago?!?!? go figure :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I was looking for your explanation not another condescending remark. You may feel better futher insulting my perceived lack of intellect, but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

There is a reason my schooling to become a doctor takes 5.5 years at university, and at least another decade of practice before I am somewhat "educated" in medicine. Pick up a book, I suggest the several thousand page "Molecular Biology of the Cell" by Alberts et al. and read it. Then come back trying to claim what you claimed without laughing yourself silly at your former ignorence.

im talking last hundred years, but your right....aand what came in after the fall of the empire....dark ages......most powerful institution in the dark ages?

None other than our good old friend the Catholic Church.

Seems like the evil old pagans with their acceptance and love towards all orientations were a threat to the Church, who brought us war, plagues, inquisitions, and the Dark Ages. Nice trade.

Well I think heterosexuality is wrong and reprehensible. Deal with that. It's not so nice being the one told you're goin' to hell.

PS: You are a nazi.


so having children is wrong? being able to have a another generation is moraly wrong? umm how about this u had to come from TWO GENDERS not one. thus is unnatural, and physically wrong.

so having children is wrong? being able to have a another generation is moraly wrong? umm how about this u had to come from TWO GENDERS not one. thus is unnatural, and physically wrong.
What does pooping out a baby have to do with parenting one? I'm sure all those kids running around homeless on the streets in major cities would be glad to clear up that misunderstanding for you.

Considering how fast the human population grows, is procreation really a huge concern? Don't we have enough parentless children in orphanages/foster homes? Maybe we should take care of the kids we already have before worrying about how the next generation will arrive. It's not like everyone is turning gay. :rolleyes:

agree 100%..........it boggles me how any resonable person could possibly use reproduction as an argument when the world is already full of 6+ billion people, and that will double soon.....its.....just wow confusing.

so having children is wrong? being able to have a another generation is moraly wrong? umm how about this u had to come from TWO GENDERS not one. thus is unnatural, and physically wrong.
"Physically wrong"?
Never heard that one before.

Also, that was a massive leap of illogic between two genders being needed for conception and homosexuality not being natural. Those two things are rather unrelated.

There is a reason my schooling to become a doctor takes 5.5 years at university, and at least another decade of practice before I am somewhat "educated" in medicine. Pick up a book, I suggest the several thousand page "Molecular Biology of the Cell" by Alberts et al. and read it. Then come back trying to claim what you claimed without laughing yourself silly at your former ignorence.

I guess that's closer to what I was looking for.

Homosexuality is great, quite frankly (and I'm being frank here), I love being gay - just like these two gay smiley faces: :fluffle:

Also, that was a massive leap of illogic between two genders being needed for conception and homosexuality not being natural. Those two things are rather unrelated.

Ex: A straight couple is sterile and cannot concieve. By the aformentioned quote from Albaridos, would this mean they are immoral?

Do you think that menstruation is bad?

Do you think that erections are bad?

Do you think that laughing is bad?

what was your point what does menstration, erections, and laughing have to do with what this person said?
:fluffle: :sniper: (not meaning anything its just fun^^)

Homosexuality is great, quite frankly (and I'm being frank here), I love being gay - just like these two gay smiley faces: :fluffle:

Ever heard of Ian Philips? Somehow that reminded me of him!

Examples please

Some of the advocates of homosexuals' rights that I have encountered have come across to me as if they believed they were superior. The only one who has posted on this thread in such a manner so far (that I noticed) I believe was joking, or I'd quote whoever it was. Some such advocates (most of these are personal acquaintances whom I cannot reference for you, actually, and I am not concerned enough with the issue to try to hunt down public information about others) who do not otherwise seem to believe they deserve preferential treatment still favor legislation to protect homosexuals' rights specifically, which I consider to be a slippery slope if not necessarily directly favoritist. I cannot cite evidence that these people are actually doing meaningful damage to the movement as a whole; that is merely speculation on my part that if I find those particular people to be unreasonable and have to remind myself not to assume all activists are the same, chances are that other people do too, and might allow their opinions of the group as a whole to be swayed as a result.

Short version: I was generalizing from personal experience. If you wanted examples of homosexuals who want favoritism, I apologize for not considering it worthwhile to go try to get any of them whom I have met to join NS and come post here. If you wanted examples of those people hurting the movement, I apologize for my generalization and extrapolation without adequate evidence.

"Physically wrong"?
Never heard that one before.

Also, that was a massive leap of illogic between two genders being needed for conception and homosexuality not being natural. Those two things are rather unrelated.

how so? female + male not male+male or female+female

I think homosexuality is bad for men and ugly women. However, I have no intention of implementing my opinion on anyone, since I am aware that it's merely due to my personal disgust of touching blokes.

Well I think heterosexuality is wrong and reprehensible. Deal with that. It's not so nice being the one told you're goin' to hell.

PS: You are a nazi.
Oh, thanks. You are sooo tolerant and kind. Really respectful of other people's views. Oh, and while we're on the subject of stupid assumptions...I'm not heterosexual. People seem to think being gay or straight is the only option in the world. In fact, I am asexual.

Ex: A straight couple is sterile and cannot concieve. By the aformentioned quote from Albaridos, would this mean they are immoral?

thats a phisical defect not a choice ... duh (i didnt think that would even have been needed to be said)

I think homosexuality is the business of the individual. Other people, whether they be clergy, family, or government, have NO PLACE IN THE BEDROOMS OF THE NATION.

Ahem. Heterosexuality is kind of important. Call me a lunatic, but the survival of the species takes precedent over a lot of things. The only thing is that either the entire world should have a one-child policy, or we should build massive colonies in space. The Earth has altogether way too many people.

Though I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals (I hate people based on their lack of merit, not on race, gender, nationality, etc.), I am quite frankly baffled as to why homosexuality exists at all. Creationists (a.k.a. Religious NutBars, buy one today!!!) will tell you that homosexuality is an abomination. Biologists will tell you that any homosexual element is a liability to the survival of a species, because/so those members would not pass their genetic information on to the next generation. Nobody knows if it is caused by a dormant gene, or by environment (homosexuality existed for thousands of years despite its brutal attempted extermination by religions everywhere).

Notice to all homosexuals: People are tolerant now, but if you keep up the annoyingness with the parades and the public sex acts (same goes for ALL people, get a room!!!), and the decorating shows, people will get increasingly irate and annoyed. Irritableness leads to hatred, which helps nobody.

Personally, I have no clue as to why someone is sexually attracted to another of the same sex.

:D

Actually, using the length of a relationship is menaingless. If both decide to split up and move on after a short while, isn't that better than being together for years and going behind each others' backs and cheating on each other?


exactly :)

thats a phisical defect not a choice ... duh (i didnt think that would even have been needed to be said)

What if the couple decides to become sterilized?

how so? female + male not male+male or female+female
The definition of 'natural':
Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : LEGITIMATE (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : ILLEGITIMATE <a natural child>
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble... brother... ever most kind and natural -- Shakespeare>
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color
Homosexual relationships not resulting in children has nothnig to do with whether homosexuality is caused by Nature.

What if the couple decides to become sterilized?

then i believe that it is wrong (another obvious one...)

Oh, thanks. You are sooo tolerant and kind. Really respectful of other people's views. Oh, and while we're on the subject of stupid assumptions...I'm not heterosexual. People seem to think being gay or straight is the only option in the world. In fact, I am asexual.



Was that a choice made by you or for you? :p j/k, please don't spam me! *hides*

then i believe that it is wrong (another obvious one...)

But to someone who doesn't find it wrong, it is not obvious.

I'm going to tell the truth. I am against homosexuality. I am however, against the violence against the homosexual.

thats a phisical defect not a choice ... duh (i didnt think that would even have been needed to be said)

This is of course based on your homophobic assumptions that homosexual people *choose* to be that way. Which they don't - why would anyone choose a lifetime of suffering fools? If I could be straight i would, it would make life so much freaking easier.

Why do people have to keep bringing up sexuality on these forums, it really depresses me to have to debate my existence every week. Can't we talk about cruelty to animals or America's dreadful foreign policy??

Biologists will tell you that any homosexual element is a liability to the survival of a species, because/so those members would not pass their genetic information on to the next generation.
Not all would say that. Homosexuals, by virtue of not having any children (from a biological standpoint), could help take care of other children or otherwise do things people bogged down with kids don't have time for. After all, why else would grandmothers exist when they're way past their ability to procreate?

so having children is wrong? being able to have a another generation is moraly wrong? umm how about this u had to come from TWO GENDERS not one. thus is unnatural, and physically wrong.

Since I've never heard the term "physically wrong" before I assume you mean "physically false", i.e. "not proceeding according to the laws of physics". However, such a process is impossible in our universe. Fags exist and therefore "physically right".

Thus your argument which declares gaylords to be on a lower moral ground is flushed down the shitter.

The thread pattern seems cyclical:

US Politics-RP/Joke threads-Religion/Society-World Affairs and back again.

The thread pattern seems cyclical:

US Politics-RP/Joke threads-Religion/Society-World Affairs and back again.


Okay...what is the meaning of life? ;)

I've heard some people say that the human race will soon cease to exist because of HS people. My question is how so? There are plenty of hetero-sexual people in the world to keep it going for millions of years. Another said with a HS person in the D.C. cabinet will change the U.S. Another question, how? Anyone like that that gets to be president must have had enough knowledge of politics and popularity to become president. We live in a prejudistic society, no one likes whats going on. What can you do? What can just one person do against a world of billions?

Saying being gay is bad is like saying maturbation is bad

Okay...what is the meaning of life? ;)

Easy: 42. :cool:

Since I've never heard the term "physically wrong" before I assume you mean "physically false", i.e. "not proceeding according to the laws of physics". However, such a process is impossible in our universe. Fags exist and therefore "physically right".

Thus your argument which declares gaylords to be on a lower moral ground is flushed down the shitter.

besides which, we all know fags and gaylords are better than breeders :D

I'm going to tell the truth. I am against homosexuality. I am however, against the violence against the homosexual.

Same here. Although I wouldn't say I would prefer gays not to exist, because without them, comedic characters like Bruno from Da Ali G show wouldn't exist. And homophobes who can be made fun of wouldn't exist either.

The definition of 'natural':

Homosexual relationships not resulting in children has nothnig to do with whether homosexuality is caused by Nature.

where was i talking about homosexuality being caused by nature? i was originaly asking if children are wrong, thus homosexuals BEING unnatural, as in, going against nature.

besides which, we all know fags and gaylords are better than breeders :D

Better at what?

If you mean "better at being a human person", I'd have to disagree. Every individual is equal in that respeck in my book.

Saying being gay is bad is like saying maturbation is bad

and we all know, *that ain't so*. Oh hang on, masturbation is an abomination as well isn't it?
:headbang:

besides which, we all know fags and gaylords are better than breeders :D

We all know the truth: God hates figs

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

Easy: 42. :cool:


Woohoo! A Hitchhiker Fan ^^ I can't wait until the movie comes out :D I want to see it soooo badly.

We all know the truth: God hates figs

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

haha omg thats HILARIOUS! lolllll

Woohoo! A Hitchhiker Fan ^^ I can't wait until the movie comes out :D I want to see it soooo badly.

I hope they keep true to the book. Too bad DNA isn't here to keep an eye on them. :(

haha omg thats HILARIOUS! lolllll

Courtesy of the Ian Philips website.

I hope they keep true to the book. Too bad DNA isn't here to keep an eye on them. :(

From what I've heard, it's going to go along the basic timeline of the book, but that's about it. You should expect the movie to differ from the book, just like the book was different compared to the radio show. ^^ I just hope it will be funny.

Not all would say that. Homosexuals, by virtue of not having any children (from a biological standpoint), could help take care of other children or otherwise do things people bogged down with kids don't have time for. After all, why else would grandmothers exist when they're way past their ability to procreate?

Yeah, or if an individual happens to be carrying a genetic "defect" it could also be good for the species if said individual removed themselves from th gene-pool by being queer.

From what I've heard, it's going to go along the basic timeline of the book, but that's about it. You should expect the movie to differ from the book, just like the book was different compared to the radio show. ^^ I just hope it will be funny.

Well, given how funny the book was, even if they keep it only somewhat close it will be hilarious.

God i love that word "homophobic". When you cannot answer back to someones argument, you put it down to a phobia (a irrational fear) and leave it at that.

As has been said many times on this thread, peoples views on such a controversial topic cannot be changed, but we are here to have a damned good argument are we not? :)

I find homosexuals sickening and wrong, from a hetero-point of view, but as far as im concerned, i have no problem with you wanting a relationship together, its your life. Its when you start to influence other peoples lives with it that problems start.

In issues like race, we are all equal as there is no real normal. In sexuality, there is a very real normal, and if you stray you MUST expect criticism. And dont start with all that asexual and bisexual crap. Unless you have a completely different set of genitals that can be compatible with another set to produce offspring, youre talking sh*t. There will only EVER be male and female, and heterosexuality as the norm. Deal with it.

Homosexuality as a means of recreation is (sick, but ) acceptable, homosexuality and bringing up a child is abbhorently wrong.

Well, given how funny the book was, even if they keep it only somewhat close it will be hilarious.

http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/

official site :D

Homosexuality as a means of recreation is (sick, but ) acceptable, homosexuality and bringing up a child is abbhorently wrong.

Why?

how can the answer to all of life's questions be 42?

Oh, thanks. You are sooo tolerant and kind. Really respectful of other people's views. Oh, and while we're on the subject of stupid assumptions...I'm not heterosexual. People seem to think being gay or straight is the only option in the world. In fact, I am asexual.

So you iz actually trying NOT TO HAVE SEX?

how can the answer to all of life's questions be 42?


Read the book...it will answer nothing, but it's an amusing way to spend your time :P

God i love that word "homophobic". When you cannot answer back to someones argument, you put it down to a phobia (a irrational fear) and leave it at that.

As has been said many times on this thread, peoples views on such a controversial topic cannot be changed, but we are here to have a damned good argument are we not? :)

I find homosexuals sickening and wrong, from a hetero-point of view, but as far as im concerned, i have no problem with you wanting a relationship together, its your life. Its when you start to influence other peoples lives with it that problems start.

In issues like race, we are all equal as there is no real normal. In sexuality, there is a very real normal, and if you stray you MUST expect criticism. And dont start with all that asexual and bisexual crap. Unless you have a completely different set of genitals that can be compatible with another set to produce offspring, youre talking sh*t. There will only EVER be male and female, and heterosexuality as the norm. Deal with it.

Homosexuality as a means of recreation is (sick, but ) acceptable, homosexuality and bringing up a child is abbhorently wrong.

Dude have you ever read the Kinsey report? It reveals that there is no norm when it comes to sexuality. Everybody's different.

how can the answer to all of life's questions be 42?
Not all of life's questions. Only the ultimate question.

God i love that word "homophobic". When you cannot answer back to someones argument, you put it down to a phobia (a irrational fear) and leave it at that.

As has been said many times on this thread, peoples views on such a controversial topic cannot be changed, but we are here to have a damned good argument are we not? :)

I find homosexuals sickening and wrong, from a hetero-point of view, but as far as im concerned, i have no problem with you wanting a relationship together, its your life. Its when you start to influence other peoples lives with it that problems start.

In issues like race, we are all equal as there is no real normal. In sexuality, there is a very real normal, and if you stray you MUST expect criticism. And dont start with all that asexual and bisexual crap. Unless you have a completely different set of genitals that can be compatible with another set to produce offspring, youre talking sh*t. There will only EVER be male and female, and heterosexuality as the norm. Deal with it.

Homosexuality as a means of recreation is (sick, but ) acceptable, homosexuality and bringing up a child is abbhorently wrong.

Your whole "argument" is "gays are icky" and "my imagination is too limited to forego the heterosexist binary system, and that should be someone else's problem"? Grow up!

Your whole "argument" is "gays are icky" and "my imagination is too limited to forego the heterosexist binary system, and that should be someone else's problem"? Grow up!

In my opinion:

Sexuality is a grayscale, not black and white.

In my opinion:

Sexuality is a grayscale, not black and white.
sexuality...gender...the whole thing is a sliding scale.

Your whole "argument" is "gays are icky" and "my imagination is too limited to forego the heterosexist binary system, and that should be someone else's problem"? Grow up!

now heres the sad thing (as age is when it comes to computers, internet) i'd like to noe who is the older one playing, and reading threads put out by teens/early 20s (as the ages that i noe of that actualy play these types - or any online - of games *plz no criticising its only generalization*)

now heres the sad thing (as age is when it comes to computers, internet) i'd like to noe who is the older one playing, and reading threads put out by teens/early 20s (as the ages that i noe of that actualy play these types - or any online - of games *plz no criticising its only generalization*)

Do try to rewrite that so that it complies with the standards of written language, and so that it actually means something and at least makes an attempt at making sense, please. Thank you.

Do try to rewrite that so that it complies with the standards of written language, and so that it actually means something and at least makes an attempt at making sense, please. Thank you.

Yes, we need a translation. I don't understand it. :confused:

It may make you write faster, but the time spent guessing and translating takes up more of the readers' time than it would for you to just post clearly.

Easy: 42. :cool:

Now what is the question of life? Ask the mice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/modedit.jpg <snip> don't feed the trolls - Fris

wow...you certainly blew off a lot of steam.
Next time don't bother saying stuff about "if you don't like it you shouldn't have read it" because of course people are going to read it, they came to this forum to argue. Don't be suprised by the amount of harsh replies you are going to get...

Please. They can reply till their heart's content, but it will do no good. They can deny truth, but it will find them in the darkness, no matter how hidden they may seem. Do not though take that as a blow off of steam mate, for I am not angry, I just use words that are more dramatic so as to get the point across. They can't make me angry, no matter what they say. I wish I could say the same of them. As for the statement on not reading my reply, it is not but a disclaimer to any and all who would get offended. Curiosity killed the cat, no? :sniper:

In my opinion:

Sexuality is a grayscale, not black and white.

I disagree. It's a rainbow! ^_^

Sick to the teeth of the whole argument!

Homos: It's your bedroom, do what you want in it, nobody else should care. Just stop the ridiculous parades. WE GET IT, YOU'RE GAY!

Heteros: Build a bridge and get over it. WE GET IT, YOU HATE ANYONE TOO UNLIKE YOU!

Bis: Make up your mind and stop hoggin' all the sex! WE GET IT, YOU'RE OVERSEXED!

Asexual: You're kidding yourself and need to drop the act. WE GET IT, YOU'RE TRYING TO PLACE YOURSELF OUTSIDE OF THE ARGUMENT TO SEEM SOMEHOW OBJECTIVE.

Me: Shut the hell up and go away. THEY GET IT, YOU'RE APPEALING FOR REASON AND SANITY WHEN YOU KNOW DAMNED WELL IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

aaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEuuuuuuuhhh! :headbang:

Sick to the teeth of the whole argument!

Homos: It's your bedroom, do what you want in it, nobody else should care. Just stop the ridiculous parades. WE GET IT, YOU'RE GAY!

Heteros: Build a bridge and get over it. WE GET IT, YOU HATE ANYONE TOO UNLIKE YOU!

Bis: Make up your mind and stop hoggin' all the sex! WE GET IT, YOU'RE OVERSEXED!

Asexual: You're kidding yourself and need to drop the act. WE GET IT, YOU'RE TRYING TO PLACE YOURSELF OUTSIDE OF THE ARGUMENT TO SEEM SOMEHOW OBJECTIVE.

Me: Shut the hell up and go away. THEY GET IT, YOU'RE APPEALING FOR REASON AND SANITY WHEN YOU KNOW DAMNED WELL IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

aaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEuuuuuuuhhh! :headbang:

Word.

I don't believe being gay is bad, or evil, or whatever.

But sometimes, in my encounters with gays, I sometimes think Freud was correct in his diagnosis that homosexuality may very well be a kind of developmental disorder.

Hehe... I'm gay and I sometimes think that.

Then again I seem to think that about everyone straight or gay... so..

*shrugs*

~Arcreallyisasociopath...

thats a phisical defect not a choice ... duh (i didnt think that would even have been needed to be said)

Because, of course, you weighed up the options, condsidered homosexuality. Tried it. Found it not to your liking, and chose heterosexuality. Right?

while it could be considered a disorder or deviation relatively speaking, when you consider that statisticly most people are heterosexual.. however in actuality it is simply a result of an alternative sexual development, it is no different scientifically speaking to developing a heterosexual orientation.

To put this into perspective, skitzophrenea scientifically speaking is nothing more than an alternative development of the mind, if there was no social stigma concerning skitzophrenea, and hypothetically speaking if there were no detrimental symptoms resulting from this 'split mind' personality then a skitzophrenic would simply be a character trait not a disorder.

Since skitzophrenea is infact detrimental to a person's wellbieng we consider it a disorder, homosexuality is not detrimental to character, nor is it harming anyone in and of itself (though social stigma attatched to homosexuality can lead to other problems, this is simply due to some people being stuck in the dark ages, self alienation can sometimes be a biproduct of homosexuality in response to this bigotry)

Back when homosexuality was classified as a disorder it was very much considered to be detrimental to society and the affected individual, times have changed.


While we classify disorders, nature does not, and science cannot.... there are many character deviations which do not result in detrimental effects or symptoms and therefore are not classified, some australians preffer pickled cucumbers.... Since pickled cucumbers carry no social stigma, no detrimental effects to mental or physical wellbeing and go well with burgers we dont classify this preference.

You can argue that homosexuality is against nature, against society, against god etc till your blue in the face.... since these arguments are not scientific, they hold no wieght and all they are are personal opinions.

Firstly - Fass- There is no need for personal insults in an intellectual debate. If you cannot argue without petty insults, please don't post again.

Global Liberator - I don't care about the Kinsley Institute. They're view are like fashion - so ugly it has to be changed every few months.

And i know this is not scientific, its my opinion, and i will share it. Heterosexuality IS normal. I do not see how 5 millions years of proof was been ignored based on only 50 years of present sexuality. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean its normal. If someone puts shoes on their hands and walks around on them instead of feet, it isn't normal. He has evolved feet just like man and woman have developed organs to procreate.

I am well aware that nature has peculiarities, like the sea horse, unisexual plants, but these are related to species. Our species produces by sexual reproduction. A man and woman come together, sexually reproduce and thus have children. Because the man and woman come together, the species is furthered. So for all you darwinists out there, nature loves hetero humans.

Im not saying that you should stop. What you do for personal recreation is entirely your business. Just dont bring children into the situation. If children start getting more and more homosexual, less children are produced and evolution grinds to a halt. Remember that.

Just because you can do something, doesnt mean its normal. If someone puts shoes on their hands and walks around on them instead of feet, it isn't normal. He has evolved feet just like man and woman have developed organs to procreate.

I am well aware that nature has peculiarities, like the sea horse, unisexual plants, but these are related to species. Our species produces by sexual reproduction. A man and woman come together, sexually reproduce and thus have children. Because the man and woman come together, the species is furthered. So for all you darwinists out there, nature loves hetero humans.
Stop imposing your view of life on nature. Nature doesn't give a damn. Life comes and goes. Species come and go. It may matter to you whether you're alive, but go ahead and preserve yourself then. Nature won't stop you. Rape someone for all nature cares. You weren't born with shoes on either, so you can put them wherever you want. People are the only ones who care.

I believe everyone should be allowed to love the person she/he loves and everyone who thinks that homosexuality is evil or something is a norrow-minded nazi.
(I hope this will be an argumentative thread and not an everyone-agrees-thread.)
Alright while I think homosexuality is not a bad thing, don’t ad-homonym PLEASE

Firstly - Fass- There is no need for personal insults in an intellectual debate. If you cannot argue without petty insults, please don't post again.

Global Liberator - I don't care about the Kinsley Institute. They're view are like fashion - so ugly it has to be changed every few months.

And i know this is not scientific, its my opinion, and i will share it. Heterosexuality IS normal. I do not see how 5 millions years of proof was been ignored based on only 50 years of present sexuality. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean its normal. If someone puts shoes on their hands and walks around on them instead of feet, it isn't normal. He has evolved feet just like man and woman have developed organs to procreate.

I am well aware that nature has peculiarities, like the sea horse, unisexual plants, but these are related to species. Our species produces by sexual reproduction. A man and woman come together, sexually reproduce and thus have children. Because the man and woman come together, the species is furthered. So for all you darwinists out there, nature loves hetero humans.

Im not saying that you should stop. What you do for personal recreation is entirely your business. Just dont bring children into the situation. If children start getting more and more homosexual, less children are produced and evolution grinds to a halt. Remember that.

You do know there has been no solid link proven between homosexual parents and homosexual kids right?

Im not saying that you should stop. What you do for personal recreation is entirely your business. Just dont bring children into the situation. If children start getting more and more homosexual, less children are produced and evolution grinds to a halt. Remember that.

So you are saying that a same sex couple will make their child "get... more and more homosexual"?

If only I had had heterosexual parents, they might have made me more heterosexual...

Oh wait. I do have heterosexual parents.

And... Now that I think about it... so do the majority of LGBT people in the world.

~Arcisgay...

I have my own theories on the genetic side, but if it really is as simple as a gene chosing skin or hair colour, then there must be a way to reverse or correct it. I believe homosexuality is actually a genetic defect, much like any other, except as it's such a taboo subject no-one will discuss becoming 'cured' because it infringes on human rights apparently. Such is democracy. Unfortunately, I consider this to be a little short sighted.

You know, if you are going to start making "theories" about science, you should have some knowledge of it.

For instance, there is no single skin color gene. There are, at the very least, five genes which all have an influence on skin color - and skin color is meant to exist along a spectrum. There is no reason to believe that sexuality is not also supposed to be a spectrum.

Stating that a tendency towards homosexuality is a "genetic defect" is no different than stating that a tendency towards darker skin is a "genetic defect". It simply isn't true.

I am not religious, and don't actually believe in 'god' as people know it, or heaven/hell etc... I prefer to examine things scientifically.

Maybe you should learn some biology then.

The science I see in homosexuality is that the human race is meant to procreate naturally through the organs each gender has evolved. i.e. a male with a female, (or vice versa, lest i challenge political correctness here..) in order to continue the species.

You ignore the other uses of sexual contact here. Study up on behavioral biology.

It's not natural. Men cannot conceive with men, and women cannot with women. Only artificially - a matter I personally believe should be banned.

This is idiotic. You claim that it is a "genetic defect" and then state that it isn't natural - two very incompatible statements. Which is it?

Meanwhile, anything which occurs in nature is natural, and al forms of sexuality (including transgender) occur in nature.

what was your point what does menstration, erections, and laughing have to do with what this person said?

This person stated that a natural, hormone-driven state of being is bad. If they believe that, they must believe that all such states of being are bad. Thus, menstruation, erection, etc.

Alright while I think homosexuality is not a bad thing, don’t ad-homonym PLEASE
I believe you mean "ad hominem".
Unless we're talking about words with identical pronunciations.
Then again, it is 'homonym', very appropriate for this thread.

Alright, I'll stop making lame jokes now.
*hides in the corner*

Im not saying that you should stop. What you do for personal recreation is entirely your business. Just dont bring children into the situation. If children start getting more and more homosexual, less children are produced and evolution grinds to a halt. Remember that.

Do you have any evidence, that children whose adoptive parents are gay tend to be gay when they reach puberty or adulthood?
Personally, I find the idea of gay parents creepy, but I doubt they will ever cause depopulation of the earth.

I don't really think that any sexuality is bad as long as it involves consent.

Firstly - Fass- There is no need for personal insults in an intellectual debate. If you cannot argue without petty insults, please don't post again.

You have the gall to write that after your wrote "I find homosexuals sickening and wrong" and "Homosexuality as a means of recreation is sick", and after you made a complete fool of yourself by claiming that gay people would have gay children?

Really, you are not the person to be associated with anything "intellectual", it seems.

Well I think heterosexuality is wrong and reprehensible. Deal with that. It's not so nice being the one told you're goin' to hell.

PS: You are a nazi.

aparently one is only a good person if they agree whole heartedly with your ideals.. i love how one sided these agruments get... The christian expressing opposing views in a decent manner is attacked in such a deplorable manner simply because they dont agree with you. NOW who is being intolerant.. thank god for the eye for an eye rule eh ? you ethically superior person you :rolleyes:

I don't really think that any sexuality is bad as long as it involves consent.

::nod, nod, nod::

I completely agree.

Do you have any evidence, that children whose adoptive parents are gay tend to be gay when they reach puberty or adulthood?

*waits to see if there is any reply as she does know that there is evidence to the contrary* =)

Personally, I find the idea of gay parents creepy, but I doubt they will ever cause depopulation of the earth.

Why? Do you also find the idea of white parents creepy? Black parents? Muslim parents? Liberal parents? Single parents?

I don't really think that any sexuality is bad as long as it involves consent.

To which I respond: pedophilia = bad. Regardless if the kid is 'consenting'.

aparently one is only a good person if they agree whole heartedly with your ideals..

One is only a good person if they are tolerant. One's opinion is only relevant if they have some reason other than "so and so said it" for their beliefs.

The christian expressing opposing views in a decent manner is attacked in such a deplorable manner simply because they dont agree with you.

Imagine if someone posted "I am tolerant of Christians, but I think they are all deplorable and wrong."

Meanwhile, why use the moniker "Christian" as if all Christians agreed with this person?

How would you respond?

NOW who is being intolerant..

It is very difficult to be tolerant of bigots. Granted, it should be done, and was not in the post you responded to, but it is very difficult.\

To which I respond: pedophilia = bad. Regardless if the kid is 'consenting'.

Children are incapable of consenting, so no problem there.

Children are incapable of consenting, so no problem there.
Agreed.

Firstly - Fass- There is no need for personal insults in an intellectual debate. If you cannot argue without petty insults, please don't post again.

Global Liberator - I don't care about the Kinsley Institute. They're view are like fashion - so ugly it has to be changed every few months.

And i know this is not scientific, its my opinion, and i will share it. Heterosexuality IS normal. I do not see how 5 millions years of proof was been ignored based on only 50 years of present sexuality. Just because you can do something, doesnt mean its normal. If someone puts shoes on their hands and walks around on them instead of feet, it isn't normal. He has evolved feet just like man and woman have developed organs to procreate.

5 million years? versus 50?

You have an odd and misinformed view of history.

You might want to check out Plato's Lysis, Phaedrus, and Symposium

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote in the Symposium, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love -- all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."

I am well aware that nature has peculiarities, like the sea horse, unisexual plants, but these are related to species. Our species produces by sexual reproduction. A man and woman come together, sexually reproduce and thus have children. Because the man and woman come together, the species is furthered. So for all you darwinists out there, nature loves hetero humans.

Um, if you studied the question, you would know that homosexuality is common among other species.

Sexuality serves a number of purposes other than reproduction -- even from an evolutionary standpoint.

And homosexuality serves numerous evolutionary purposes.


Im not saying that you should stop. What you do for personal recreation is entirely your business. Just dont bring children into the situation. If children start getting more and more homosexual, less children are produced and evolution grinds to a halt. Remember that.

Again, homosexuality and sexual orientations other than heterosexuality have been around as long as mankind. Guess what? We're still here!

In fact, we're over-populating the planet. Whee!

To put this into perspective, skitzophrenea scientifically speaking is nothing more than an alternative development of the mind, if there was no social stigma concerning skitzophrenea, and hypothetically speaking if there were no detrimental symptoms resulting from this 'split mind' personality then a skitzophrenic would simply be a character trait not a disorder.
Sorry, a pet peeve here:
Schizophrenia is not the disorder where a person has multiple personalities. Multiple personalities is dissociative identity disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder).
Schizophrenia:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/family/sz.overview.htm
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-ps01.html
http://www.chovil.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Children are incapable of consenting, so no problem there.
That's what I was thinking when I didn't put the usual thing about being of age in there too.

I believe everyone should be allowed to love the person she/he loves and everyone who thinks that homosexuality is evil or something is a norrow-minded nazi.
(I hope this will be an argumentative thread and not an everyone-agrees-thread.)
:rolleyes: Name calling is such a great way to convince people of something.

For the record, I don't think that homosexuality is bad. I would however like to hear people's reasoning for thinking so.

Haven't read through the rest of the thread yet...

To which I respond: pedophilia = bad. Regardless if the kid is 'consenting'.

Children are not considered to be able to consent because the adult holds the power in such situations, so children are *never* consenting in cases of pedophila.

Children are not considered to be able to consent because the adult holds the power in such situations, so children are *never* consenting in cases of pedophila.
Vladimir Nabokov (the author of Lolita) would probably argue with you about that.

What does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality?

Is homosexuality bad?

No.

*waits to see if there is any reply as she does know that there is evidence to the contrary* =)



Why? Do you also find the idea of white parents creepy? Black parents? Muslim parents? Liberal parents? Single parents?

I think it's disgusting enough when I accidentally picture my parents having sex (there I'm doin it right now). I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I could picture 2 battymen who would be my "dads" being each others turdburglars. Also, I would have thought kids with male gay parents would get ripped on in school the whole time (at ages 8 till 13 probably). I'd imagine a kid with lesbian parents not to be subject to such treatment. However Fass claimed that he knows this not to be true in at least some cases.

Think about it this way: It is common among humans to be scared of new things. White, black, muslim, liberal and single parents have been around for quite a while now (muslim ones only for under 1400 years), but from what I know, gays adopting kids is a fairly new thing

Think about it this way: It is common among humans to be scared of new things. White, black, muslim, liberal and single parents have been around for quite a while now (muslim ones only for under 1400 years), but from what I know, gays adopting kids is a fairly new thing

The point is that kids are going to get ridiculed no matter what, and *no* kid likes to picture their parents having sex - with anyone.

If a kid has fat parents, they're going to get ripped on, but I don't see anyone yelling that we shouldn't let fat people adopt.

Also, I would have thought kids with male gay parents would get ripped on in school the whole time (at ages 8 till 13 probably).
Unless it's a small community I doubt anyone would really care. I grew up with this guy who kept it no secret that he had two fathers and no one ever bothered him. And I live in Oklahoma where homophobia runs free.

I believe you mean "ad hominem".
Unless we're talking about words with identical pronunciations.
Then again, it is 'homonym', very appropriate for this thread.

Alright, I'll stop making lame jokes now.
*hides in the corner*
You are correct ... stupid microsoft word thinking it knows what I want to spell :p