NationStates Jolt Archive

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.

I don't have a problem with gays.

me neither.

People are dumb no matter what you do. I mean, women constitute a majority of the population, yet they have been oppressed for aeons. Society needs to be broken down and rebuilt. The way it is now, its just idiotic. People rid of any real traditional culture yet manage to retain all their prejudices.

I hate gay people!

Anybody who is happy all the time has issues!

I have a problem with gays.




If there are three gays in a bar, and every time five gays enter the bar, two more leave, how many are in the bar after thirty-five gays have entered the bar?

I hate gay people!

Anybody who is happy all the time has issues!
So me being a gay goth would be an oxymoron? :p I am an existential paradox :eek:

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.
I lived in the SF Bay Area (now I just live really close to the SF Bay Area)-we had this cat that moved from New Hampshire at one of my jobs that was afraid to go to San Francisco becuase he was afraid the 'gays my touch him.' We tried to figure it out, how that was supposed to work, but couldn't. It's not like women couldn't keep thier hands off him, so I don't know why he'd think that dudes would have that problem either.

The only thing we where left with is that he was afraid he'd like it. I know the homophobic out there don't like that implication, but it's hard to come up with another reason.

Now here's the breakdown.

I have nothing against gays, as long as they do not attempt to make me gay, since I like boobs, and I don't want that factor to change.

I like lesbians, since they are incapable of turning me into one (as I am not a woman), and they have boobs.

I have a problem with gays.




If there are three gays in a bar, and every time five gays enter the bar, two more leave, how many are in the bar after thirty-five gays have entered the bar?
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/images/smilies/rockon.gif

I don't think I hate them, I honestly think they are a mutation. I wouldn't kill them off(death is bad ;)), but I wouldn't support them.

i have a gay roommate. and i dont have a problem with him . he's awesome!!!

Now here's the breakdown.

I have nothing against gays, as long as they do not attempt to make me gay, since I like boobs, and I don't want that factor to change.

I like lesbians, since they are incapable of turning me into one (as I am not a woman), and they have boobs.

You would only have to worry about "turning into one" if you were insecure about your sexuality. If you are heterosexual through and through what have you to worry if you get hit on by gay guys?

I don't think I hate them, I honestly think they are a mutation. I wouldn't kill them off(death is bad ;)), but I wouldn't support them.
Mutations eventually fade away. Gay people have existed throughout the ages. Its a biological phenomena, not some mutation.

Mutations eventually fade away. Gay people have existed throughout the ages. Its a biological phenomena, not some mutation.

Even then, mutations != bad.

Even then, mutations != bad.
True. They are often adaptations to a given environment in order to survive.

You would only have to worry about "turning into one" if you were insecure about your sexuality. If you are heterosexual through and through what have you to worry if you get hit on by gay guys?

Actually, If you were secure about your sexuality, then you would most definitely have a slighter view homosexuality, seeing as how you could not understand on why they would like as they do.

People make me vomit.

Seriously. Being around other human beings has made me a misanthrope. I can't stand the vast majority of my species. Stupid, irrational, shortsighted, bigoted idiots, for the most part.

Vile and dissolute creatures, the lot of them. - Commodore Norrington

Seriously. Being around other human beings has made me a misanthrope. I can't stand the vast majority of my species. Stupid, irrational, shortsighted, bigoted idiots, for the most part.

Vile and dissolute creatures, the lot of them. - Commodore Norrington
Too true. :p

Now here's the breakdown.

I have nothing against gays, as long as they do not attempt to make me gay,


How do they make you gay?


since I like boobs, and I don't want that factor to change.


What about man boobs?


I like lesbians, since they are incapable of turning me into one (as I am not a woman), and they have boobs.

Welllllll not always.

Actually, If you were secure about your sexuality, then you would most definitely have a slighter view homosexuality, seeing as how you could not understand on why they would like as they do.

Just because you are secure with your sexuality does not mean you wouldn't understand someone else's sexuality.

Now here's the breakdown.

I have nothing against gays, as long as they do not attempt to make me gay, since I like boobs, and I don't want that factor to change.

I like lesbians, since they are incapable of turning me into one (as I am not a woman), and they have boobs.

For us gay folks, straight men are pretty to look at but they're OFF LIMITS.

Why? Because they're STRAIGHT.

We gay folks don't like it when women hit on us; so we figure straight men wouldn't like it if we hit on them.

Though I have noticed straight men tend to get REALLY offended if they think we're attracted to them, and we tell them we're not interested because they're just not our type. ("What do you mean, 'I'm not your type?' Are you saying I'm not good enough for you?")

For us gay folks, straight men are pretty to look at but they're OFF LIMITS.

Why? Because they're STRAIGHT.

We gay folks don't like it when women hit on us; so we figure straight men wouldn't like it if we hit on them.

Though I have noticed straight men tend to get REALLY offended if they think we're attracted to them, and we tell them we're not interested because they're just not our type. ("What do you mean, 'I'm not your type?' Are you saying I'm not good enough for you?")
I don't mind women hitting on me :p It flatters me.

You would only have to worry about "turning into one" if you were insecure about your sexuality. If you are heterosexual through and through what have you to worry if you get hit on by gay guys?

Exactly! I would go so far as to french kiss a guy (obviously for a joke or dare or something) and be totally fine with it. I've kissed enough girls and am comfortable enough about my sexuality to know that it won't affect me other than the slight disgust (which is usually ignored if the joke is grande enough).

I don't think I hate them, I honestly think they are a mutation. I wouldn't kill them off(death is bad ;)), but I wouldn't support them.

Of course they're a mutation. You're a mutation. Every biological trait of yours arose from mutation. Every time you stand out in the sun too long minor, short-lived mutations occur. What's you point?

Actually, gay people can be the result of any of a few different observed homosexuality-causing mutations. Interestingly, it seems to be primarily the mother's fault. Female hypersexuality genes passed to sons, and testosterone underexposure in utero, for example.

What exact problem do you have with supporting them? The real answer, I'll guess beforehand, is hardwired subconscious aversion and hatred - on some level that you don't suppress or control very well, you fear them and see them as a threat. Which really makes no sense at all, rationally, but I suppose everyone doesn't choose their opinions logically or exercise control over their animalistic responses.

Actually, gay people can be the result of any of a few different observed homosexuality-causing mutations. Interestingly, it seems to be primarily the mother's fault. Female hypersexuality genes passed to sons, and testosterone underexposure in utero, for example.

That's more a theory than anything else though. Research as to why individuals are gay has been inconclusive thus so far.

Actually, If you were secure about your sexuality, then you would most definitely have a slighter view homosexuality, seeing as how you could not understand on why they would like as they do.

Actually somebody who is secure in their sexuality would not say:


I have nothing against gays, as long as they do not attempt to make me gay,

The only gays I have a problem with are ones like the guy who got a family friend expelled from school a few years back, for a "hate crime", and the ones who are intolerant of straight people's desire to not have sexuality shoved in one's face constantly (I am not referring to holding hands etc. but rather the fact that some gay people seem to feel a need to announce their sexuality to the world, and push it and push it until someone has a problem with them. You know, every time sex or relationships is brought up they remind everyone how oppressed they are because they are gay, and that we live in a heterocentric world, yada yada yada. The is going to be heterocentric and heterosexist, because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. People like to see people like them in movies and on TV.).

The only gays I have a problem with are ones like the guy who got a family friend expelled from school a few years back, for a "hate crime", and the ones who are intolerant of straight people's desire to not have sexuality shoved in one's face constantly (I am not referring to holding hands etc. but rather the fact that some gay people seem to feel a need to announce their sexuality to the world, and push it and push it until someone has a problem with them. You know, every time sex or relationships is brought up they remind everyone how oppressed they are because they are gay, and that we live in a heterocentric world, yada yada yada. The is going to be heterocentric and heterosexist, because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. People like to see people like them in movies and on TV.).
I agree with you, even if I am gay, that very flamboyant gay guys annoy the hell out of me. If anything, my mind is more female than queer, so they just work me up the wrong way. Of course, it would be nice to see more gay films, but interesting ones, not just random rubbish.

The only gays I have a problem with are ones like the guy who got a family friend expelled from school a few years back, for a "hate crime", and the ones who are intolerant of straight people's desire to not have sexuality shoved in one's face constantly (I am not referring to holding hands etc. but rather the fact that some gay people seem to feel a need to announce their sexuality to the world, and push it and push it until someone has a problem with them. You know, every time sex or relationships is brought up they remind everyone how oppressed they are because they are gay, and that we live in a heterocentric world, yada yada yada. The is going to be heterocentric and heterosexist, because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. People like to see people like them in movies and on TV.).

LOL. What hypocrisy. You're complaining about gays who shove their sexuality in your face by complaining about straight people who shove their sexuality in their faces? Lol. I'd say if you can stand on the sidewalk with your gf sucking face in an oral mimicry of penetration while some gay guy sits at the adjacent bus stop, he has every right to the exact same damn thing with his boyfriend while you sit at the adjacent bus stop. If you don't like having the fact that someone is gay being blaring obvious, broadcasted, significantly acted upon within your radius of observation, etc., realize that it's a precedent that the heterosexual mainstream sets. What one side can do, so can the other.

I agree with you, even if I am gay, that very flamboyant gay guys annoy the hell out of me. If anything, my mind is more female than queer, so they just work me up the wrong way. Of course, it would be nice to see more gay films, but interesting ones, not just random rubbish.

Oh yeah, I definitely think it is important to have representation of gays in film and TV, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that there should be a homosexual character in every TV show, or that there should be an equal number of gay-related films as non-gay related films. I think it should be "if it's natural and relevant then do it." For everything.

Oh yeah, I definitely think it is important to have representation of gays in film and TV, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that there should be a homosexual character in every TV show, or that there should be an equal number of gay-related films as non-gay related films. I think it should be "if it's natural and relevant then do it." For everything.
Precisely. Otherwise it just becomes excessive.

LOL. What hypocrisy. You're complaining about gays who shove their sexuality in your face by complaining about straight people who shove their sexuality in their faces? Lol. I'd say if you can stand on the sidewalk with your gf sucking face in an oral mimicry of penetration while some gay guy sits at the adjacent bus stop, he has every right to the exact same damn thing with his boyfriend while you sit at the adjacent bus stop. If you don't like having the fact that someone is gay being blaring obvious, broadcasted, significantly acted upon within your radius of observation, etc., realize that it's a precedent that the heterosexual mainstream sets. What one side can do, so can the other.
I think he did say that he didn't mean things like holding hands, which could extend to kissing etc. :p

Eh, gays will have to go through the same token period blacks, women, and sometimes Oreintals do/did. Espcially with kids, ever seen a commercial with kids? one white, one black, one indian, one oriental, one girl, etc....


EDIT: Don't ask me how they get a token gay kid, it was just an example.

For everyone contradicting me, I'm just saying it's my point of view. I'm not preaching gospel, but its my opinion. I know expect to go, 'oooooooooh! that's teh hazxor'

Actually, If you were secure about your sexuality, then you would most definitely have a slighter view homosexuality, seeing as how you could not understand on why they would like as they do.

Not really, basic human physology is the basics - knowing that one can stimulate the prostate and have an orgasm - hence one such as I partake in a bit of buggery when on offer :D

As for 'attraction' - we're attracted to the male form; males are attracted to females with an hour glass figure, females attracted to the more V shaped male body. Basically, what girls like about guys, we like about them :)

LOL. What hypocrisy. You're complaining about gays who shove their sexuality in your face by complaining about straight people who shove their sexuality in their faces? Lol. I'd say if you can stand on the sidewalk with your gf sucking face in an oral mimicry of penetration while some gay guy sits at the adjacent bus stop, he has every right to the exact same damn thing with his boyfriend while you sit at the adjacent bus stop. If you don't like having the fact that someone is gay being blaring obvious, broadcasted, significantly acted upon within your radius of observation, etc., realize that it's a precedent that the heterosexual mainstream sets. What one side can do, so can the other.

Actually, I made it quite clear that I wasn't referring to PDA's between gay couples. Although I find very overt PDA's between any sort of people quite offensive (I don't like standing at a bar while a guy fingers his girlfriend, or sitting at a busstop with a couple feeling each other up and engaging in foreplay). What I was referring to is the fact that some gay people feel the need to broadcast their sexuality at any opportunity. With words. Whenever they open their mouths. I used to have a class with a lesbian couple, and every time they entered a discussion, they began with "Well, I'm a lesbian and ...".

I think he did say that he didn't mean things like holding hands, which could extend to kissing etc. :p

yes I did mean that...and I'm a girl btw. Just so you know :p

yes I did mean that...and I'm a girl btw. Just so you know :p
My faux-pas. Hope you'll pardon me :p

Actually, I made it quite clear that I wasn't referring to PDA's between gay couples. Although I find very overt PDA's between any sort of people quite offensive (I don't like standing at a bar while a guy fingers his girlfriend, or sitting at a busstop with a couple feeling each other up and engaging in foreplay). What I was referring to is the fact that some gay people feel the need to broadcast their sexuality at any opportunity. With words. Whenever they open their mouths. I used to have a class with a lesbian couple, and every time they entered a discussion, they began with "Well, I'm a lesbian and ...".
Overt displays of affection usually also annoy me...especially if two people go out of their way to flaunt their...relationship.

Manifest flamboyance, like someone that just screams "I'm queer and I'm here" all the time also annoy me. Not feminine, just annoying really.

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.

For myself, I only fear gays for their threat to society.

You might ask, "Threat to society?"

Yes, threat to society. Consider, for a moment as gays increase. Gay people do not reproduce. As such, gay people should be dead, died out. However, they are not, they continue to previal in larger and larger numbers. Now, let's say that this trend continues; all of the people of a generation are gay. As such, no children would be born from hetrosexual relationships. Humanity would die, we would fail. I fear the though of us, the greatest race ever, failing.

So, therefore, I do not have a problem with gayness, but rather its effects. In conclusion, I believe that all gays should be killed to stop any influence at all. Kind of a genocide-like thing. It can be extended to all genetic misfits.

"Don't pee in the gene pool"

:( don't ban me.

Is there really any point to the gay pride parade? Doesn't really seem to have any purpose beside the whole "I'm here, I"m queer" thing. Which annoys me. I mean I don't go around screaming "I like to fucka the chicka!"

I think he did say that he didn't mean things like holding hands, which could extend to kissing etc. :p

He mentioned holding hands only, which could reasonably extend to basic, fairly chaste kissing. Making out? Flaunting being in a same-sex relationship through physical behavior? I'd say that given his/her attitude in the post those things would fall under what he considers to be annoying and egregious.

Overt displays of affection usually also annoy me...especially if two people go out of their way to flaunt their...relationship.

Manifest flamboyance, like someone that just screams "I'm queer and I'm here" all the time also annoy me. Not feminine, just annoying really.

Yeah, extremes of seuxality annoy me. I hate gay people who go to the extreme end, like full-on flamboyance, and straight people who act so macho or boy crazy to demonstrate just how straight they are. I don't see sexuality as a big issue. People are gonna do what makes them feel good and go with what's natural to them. Its nobody's business but their own who they like.

Not only do I support male homosexuality, but I promote it. More women for me!

In all seriousness, hatred of gays could well be compared to hatred of blacks. They're different, so they're 'inferior' or 'mutated' somehow. Humans never were the most open-minded, tolerant and rational species on the planet, but I don't think anybody has ever suggested otherwise, so...

Yeah, extremes of seuxality annoy me. I hate gay people who go to the extreme end, like full-on flamboyance, and straight people who act so macho or boy crazy to demonstrate just how straight they are. I don't see sexuality as a big issue. People are gonna do what makes them feel good and go with what's natural to them. Its nobody's business but their own who they like.
Very well put :)

For myself, I only fear gays for their threat to society.

You might ask, "Threat to society?"

Yes, threat to society. Consider, for a moment as gays increase. Gay people do not reproduce. As such, gay people should be dead, died out. However, they are not, they continue to previal in larger and larger numbers. Now, let's say that this trend continues; all of the people of a generation are gay. As such, no children would be born from hetrosexual relationships. Humanity would die, we would fail. I fear the though of us, the greatest race ever, failing.

So, therefore, I do not have a problem with gayness, but rather its effects. In conclusion, I believe that all gays should be killed to stop any influence at all. Kind of a genocide-like thing. It can be extended to all genetic misfits.

"Don't pee in the gene pool"

:( don't ban me.

Heil, mein Fuhrer! You have returned from the dead, Great Leader....

Also, in a serious rebuttal, percentages of gays aren't changing. The only thing that changes is how many feel safe enough to not lie about it.

Some straights hate gays because gays get more sex than they do.

:sniper:

Heil, mein Fuhrer! You have returned from the dead, Great Leader....

Also, in a serious rebuttal, percentages of gays aren't changing. The only thing that changes is how many feel safe enough to not lie about it.

And after that post, it might go down again...

For myself, I only fear gays for their threat to society.

You might ask, "Threat to society?"

Yes, threat to society. Consider, for a moment as gays increase. Gay people do not reproduce. As such, gay people should be dead, died out. However, they are not, they continue to previal in larger and larger numbers. Now, let's say that this trend continues; all of the people of a generation are gay. As such, no children would be born from hetrosexual relationships. Humanity would die, we would fail. I fear the though of us, the greatest race ever, failing.

So, therefore, I do not have a problem with gayness, but rather its effects. In conclusion, I believe that all gays should be killed to stop any influence at all. Kind of a genocide-like thing. It can be extended to all genetic misfits.

"Don't pee in the gene pool"

:( don't ban me.

You do realise that
a) homosexuality is NOT a choice
b) the constant ratio of homosexual individuals in any given species is usually set at 10% of males, 7% of females
c) Nowadays, with new technologies on the rise, homosexual couples can reproduce.

For us gay folks, straight men are pretty to look at but they're OFF LIMITS.

Why? Because they're STRAIGHT.

True, its like looking at something expensive in the shop - nice to look at, but we realise that we'll never have it, so we move along nice and quietly :)

We gay folks don't like it when women hit on us; so we figure straight men wouldn't like it if we hit on them.

Assuming that we know when we're getting hit on - believe me, I was in an IT class for a year, and apparently there were three girls hitting on me, with me completely oblivious to the situation.

Though I have noticed straight men tend to get REALLY offended if they think we're attracted to them, and we tell them we're not interested because they're just not our type. ("What do you mean, 'I'm not your type?' Are you saying I'm not good enough for you?")

Its the male ego unfortunately - the 'everyone thinks I'm hot' complex and the same thing happens when a female turns them down; they walk away like a spoilt child, pouting because they see it as an attack on them - not that they wanted the girl, just the fact that the girl turned them down.

Mind you, I guess its the same thing with meeting guys - then again, my luck as been pretty bad lately :(

He mentioned holding hands only, which could reasonably extend to basic, fairly chaste kissing. Making out? Flaunting being in a same-sex relationship through physical behavior? I'd say that given his/her attitude in the post those things would fall under what he considers to be annoying and egregious.

Jeez, you don't read do you?

1. I stated that I'm a girl, and actually I find it quite sexist that you assume that I am a man. But I'm not casting aspersions on your character because of it.

2. I stated that I find PDA's (public displays of affection) in general quite offensive. I may be a prude but that's my business. Prudishness is not evil or discriminatory.

And after that post, it might go down again...

LOL, too true, too true. The scariest thing is that a lot of people believe all of the fallacious assumptions NeoHitler (his/her new name, now and forever) does, and would probably agree with putting gays to death, if the fundamentalist-desired theocracy was ever put in place. All that bs about how it's a choice, how it's 'spreading' and 'growing' like an epidemic, etc.

Oh yeah, I definitely think it is important to have representation of gays in film and TV, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that there should be a homosexual character in every TV show, or that there should be an equal number of gay-related films as non-gay related films. I think it should be "if it's natural and relevant then do it." For everything.

Well, what annoys me further is this - having a gay character in a show, but it seems that every show potrays the gay male as some sort of asexual person who makes the occasional sodomy joke and has alot of close female friends - apparently whilst all this happens, he has a partner who just 'stands there' like some sort of lounge room ornament with no contact with the guy.

Sure, put gay people in shows, but for goodness sake, lets move away from the tokenism - actually make them a three dimensional character that does more than say jokes and bitch with the females on the show.

1. I stated that I'm a girl, and actually I find it quite sexist that you assume that I am a man. But I'm not casting aspersions on your character because of it.

Sorry, I missed the declaration of femininity, but I didn't assume you were a man - thus the use of "he/she". Or "his/her". Something like that.

2. I stated that I find PDA's (public displays of affection) in general quite offensive. I may be a prude but that's my business. Prudishness is not evil or discriminatory.

Ah, it seemed as though you were applying a double standard and targeting distaste for PDAs primarily or solely at gays. My apologies - I thought your prudishness was dicriminatorily specific, rather than general.

Well, what annoys me further is this - having a gay character in a show, but it seems that every show potrays the gay male as some sort of asexual person who makes the occasional sodomy joke and has alot of close female friends - apparently whilst all this happens, he has a partner who just 'stands there' like some sort of lounge room ornament with no contact with the guy.

Sure, put gay people in shows, but for goodness sake, lets move away from the tokenism - actually make them a three dimensional character that does more than say jokes and bitch with the females on the show.
Agreed! I remember those gay guys in Must Love Dogs...so dull, as if they had no personality whatsoever.

Well, what annoys me further is this - having a gay character in a show, but it seems that every show potrays the gay male as some sort of asexual person who makes the occasional sodomy joke and has alot of close female friends - apparently whilst all this happens, he has a partner who just 'stands there' like some sort of lounge room ornament with no contact with the guy.

Sure, put gay people in shows, but for goodness sake, lets move away from the tokenism - actually make them a three dimensional character that does more than say jokes and bitch with the females on the show.

Well, that's sort of what I was trying to get across. That if you have this tokenism, where every show gets a gay character, whether it's natural to have it or not, then this kind of unrealistic, stereotypical representation is what you will end up with. So rather than having simply more gays, perhaps more realistic representations of gays might be a better option.

[QUOTE=Saint Jade]Jeez, you don't read do you?

1. I stated that I'm a girl, and actually I find it quite sexist that you assume that I am a man. But I'm not casting aspersions on your character because of it.[/quoted]

Sorry, I missed the declaration of femininity, but I didn't assume you were a man - thus the use of "he/she". Or "his/her". Something like that.



Ah, it seemed as though you were applying a double standard and targeting distaste for PDAs primarily or solely at gays. My apologies - I thought your prudishness was dicriminatorily specific, rather than general.

You only used the he/she once. The rest of the time, you used generic he. Perhaps the singular they could help in preventing you from making similar errors in future?

Apology accepted.

For myself, I only fear gays for their threat to society.

You might ask, "Threat to society?"

Yes, threat to society. Consider, for a moment as gays increase. Gay people do not reproduce. As such, gay people should be dead, died out. However, they are not, they continue to previal in larger and larger numbers. Now, let's say that this trend continues; all of the people of a generation are gay. As such, no children would be born from hetrosexual relationships. Humanity would die, we would fail. I fear the though of us, the greatest race ever, failing.

So, therefore, I do not have a problem with gayness, but rather its effects. In conclusion, I believe that all gays should be killed to stop any influence at all. Kind of a genocide-like thing. It can be extended to all genetic misfits.

"Don't pee in the gene pool"

:( don't ban me.

Hmm, yeah, 6billion people on earth, 90% of humans are secure straights - yeah, thats worry, humanity might die out...

Get a life, if there is one problem, it is over population and the constant copulation of straights and there inability to realise that "6billion people on earth, just might be enough!"

Hmm, yeah, 6billion people on earth, 90% of humans are secure straights - yeah, thats worry, humanity might die out...

Get a life, if there is one problem, it is over population and the constant copulation of straights and there inability to realise that "6billion people on earth, just might be enough!"
Exactly. If anything, the world suffers from over-population, more than anything else. Maintaining a reasonable birthrate, sure. Overloading the planet with babies? No thanks. :rolleyes:

While I think some homosexual tendencies may indeed be genetic, I do not think that it can be attributed to genes alone in all cases. Indeed, I don't doubt there are quite a few purely genetic gays. However, I just don't see that being the case with up to 10% of males.

I've noticed that many homosexuals I've encountered or worked with are very intelligent. An overwhelming majority, in fact. I am very aware that as intelligence rises, mental problems seem to manifest. Studies also show that homosexuals have an above average rate of mental disorders. I've felt that there are some very early "mis-wirings" of the brain, things that go haywire in early childhood development, whether it be socially caused or a result of genetics or some other factor, that cause homosexual traits.

Personally, I find flamboyant gays annoying. It's as if they're all playing an expected role rather than acting naturally. Gay groups seem to be extremely critical of each other and I think an expection of how a gay person is supposed to act influences these people.

Well, that's sort of what I was trying to get across. That if you have this tokenism, where every show gets a gay character, whether it's natural to have it or not, then this kind of unrealistic, stereotypical representation is what you will end up with. So rather than having simply more gays, perhaps more realistic representations of gays might be a better option.

True, but then again, I think it wouldn't bring in the same ratings as some from the stereotype that gets used - it appears that in the straight world, they want to see us gays all prettied up and making bloody fools of ourselves to give them a ounce of humour.

If it isn't lesbians constantly being portrayed in films as the 'lonely axe murderer who is jealous because of her lover chose someone over her', its the gay being potrayed as the guy who bounces around like a Christian evagelical claiming to receive 'jesus christ!'.

It wouldn't be so bad if most of the population weren't living in a cave, but most people *DO* live in a cave or under a rock, and simply assume that it is the 'status quo' - which it certainly isn't.

Now sure, I have my 'queeny' moments, but it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on my personality.

While I think some homosexual tendencies may indeed be genetic, I do not think that it can be attributed to genes alone in all cases. Indeed, I don't doubt there are quite a few purely genetic gays. However, I just don't see that being the case with up to 10% of males.

This is the statistic given for those who are purely gay, not out of choice. The number is a little lower for women, possibly because they are the child bearer.

Hmm, yeah, 6billion people on earth, 90% of humans are secure straights - yeah, thats worry, humanity might die out...

Get a life, if there is one problem, it is over population and the constant copulation of straights and there inability to realise that "6billion people on earth, just might be enough!"

:( I realize that you're simply attempting to introduce me to more information. However, being the person that I am, I doubt my views can really change. In essance, my original post was a response to the thread's original question, about my reason for "hating" gays. I would in no way wish to turn this into a debate, only to help further answer the question posed by the first post.

While I think some homosexual tendencies may indeed be genetic, I do not think that it can be attributed to genes alone in all cases. Indeed, I don't doubt there are quite a few purely genetic gays. However, I just don't see that being the case with up to 10% of males.

....based upon what scientific or statistical evidence, or logic?

I've noticed that many homosexuals I've encountered or worked with are very intelligent. An overwhelming majority, in fact. I am very aware that as intelligence rises, mental problems seem to manifest.

That's rather a fallacious blanket statement. It's true that some schizophrenics tend to be unusually intelligent, and that diseases such as Aspberger's (sp?) Syndrome combine high intelligence with mental abnormalities, but asserting a high positive correlation between intelligence and instance of mental disorder is going way out on a limb.

Studies also show that homosexuals have an above average rate of mental disorders.

And I wonder why that is....denial, deception, lying to friends and family, knowing that most of the world hates and fears you, and hearing hatred and discrimination against gays embedded into the structure of modern slang, common language, and idioms, and assumed in the foundation of conversation, all are pretty strong reasons to develop depression, etc.

I've felt that there are some very early "mis-wirings" of the brain, things that go haywire in early childhood development, whether it be socially caused or a result of genetics or some other factor, that cause homosexual traits.

....which is still backed up by no evidence, making your use of the word 'feel' highly appropriate.

Hmm, yeah, 6billion people on earth, 90% of humans are secure straights - yeah, thats worry, humanity might die out...

Get a life, if there is one problem, it is over population and the constant copulation of straights and there inability to realise that "6billion people on earth, just might be enough!"
Yep. If anything I woud say we need more gays. Happy and homosexual. Gays are causing the world to not self-destruct! Oh no! What next? They might cause deforestation to stop? That would be sooooooo terrible.

While I think some homosexual tendencies may indeed be genetic, I do not think that it can be attributed to genes alone in all cases. Indeed, I don't doubt there are quite a few purely genetic gays. However, I just don't see that being the case with up to 10% of males.

I've noticed that many homosexuals I've encountered or worked with are very intelligent. An overwhelming majority, in fact. I am very aware that as intelligence rises, mental problems seem to manifest. Studies also show that homosexuals have an above average rate of mental disorders. I've felt that there are some very early "mis-wirings" of the brain, things that go haywire in early childhood development, whether it be socially caused or a result of genetics or some other factor, that cause homosexual traits.

Personally, I find flamboyant gays annoying. It's as if they're all playing an expected role rather than acting naturally. Gay groups seem to be extremely critical of each other and I think an expection of how a gay person is supposed to act influences these people.

The problem with those 'mental conditions' surveys is this; it never actually shows whether those mental conditions are caused by homosexuality, come with homosexuality, or where there before they identified themselves as homosexual, and whether those conditions are also the result of extenal issues rather than the sexuality itself.

Its akin to saying that if a study shows that people who have cancer farted more than two times in a day, its obvious that farting more than two times a day causes cancer - when in reality, farting had nothing to do with it, it was but only one of many things that might have had commonality between the differing people who partook in the survey.

:( I realize that you're simply attempting to introduce me to more information. However, being the person that I am, I doubt my views can really change. In essance, my original post was a response to the thread's original question, about my reason for "hating" gays. I would in no way wish to turn this into a debate, only to help further answer the question posed by the first post.

No babe, what you need is to be booted out of the rock you've hidden yourself under, and see the world.

Believe me, after you've seen the world, you'll realise that us 'fags' aren't so bad after all.

I find that those who have the most aversion against gays are those who have lived the most sheltered of lives.

I love the support of gay people in this forum. I don't hate gays because that would mean hating myself. I am not sure if only 10% of men are gay. It seems like most of the people i know are gay or curious. And I went to military school.

Some one said earlier that all gay people should be killed for the preservation of the human race (it was to that effect). To he who said it, why don't you come to me and try and kill me. I don't mind. But you will serve the jail time in an American pound me in the Ass prison.

and that diseases such as Aspberger's (sp?) Syndrome combine high intelligence with mental abnormalities,


Asperger's I think...Have a friend with that, she prefers the term "ass burgers syndrome"

Even though I'm not, I for one have no problem with people like that. Everyone I know who say they don't like homosexual people seem to be really insecure about themselves. What's the problem? It happens in nature. Do the animals discriminate the other ones because of it. No. They don't. Why should humans? It all seems rather stupid and pointless.

Hmm.. maybe people who have problems with those who are different from themselves should pick up a book and read, or something. Some of the best books I've ever read had a homosexual person as the main character. Try The Last Herald-Mage trilogy, by Mercedes Lackey. It doesn't face the issue directly, but still... it puts a new perspective on the issue. Before I read those books, I was neutral in the issue. Now I'm for.

I love the support of gay people in this forum. I don't hate gays because that would mean hating myself. I am not sure if only 10% of men are gay. It seems like most of the people i know are gay or curious. And I went to military school.

Some one said earlier that all gay people should be killed for the preservation of the human race (it was to that effect). To he who said it, why don't you come to me and try and kill me. I don't mind. But you will serve the jail time in an American pound me in the Ass prison.If only you could be certain of that. "Gay panic" has been used as a defense more than once, and it's been successful insofar as it's kept some of the people who have used it off of Death Row or in getting reduced sentences.

Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with the issue of being gay the debate itself is the sick issue. Who are you (to anyone) to say who someone can or cant love. Nobody but that single person has that right, not even "god". (for all you relgious wackos, like catholics.) I feel so ashamed that there is even an issue over such things as gay marriage.

This is the land of the free, or at least thats what they said.

Ps. Dont get me wrong i love America. And also i dont mind gay people.

Don't look at me, I think hatred of gay people is counter-productive to good evangelism, or really anything remotely Christian at all. Yea, homosexuals within the Jewish community got stoned in old testiment times as per God's orders, but God never told the Jews to hate them while doing it. Im not the one who's supposed to be judging people anyway and gay people are also people, and hopefully if I properly advance God's cause any gay person I witness to will stop being gay AND not have to be judged guilty on the day of judgement if they accept Christ, everybody wins.... except Satan :D. Plus, hate really does wear on you after awhile, makes you lose perspective and all that stuff.

Don't look at me, I think hatred of gay people is counter-productive to good evangelism, or really anything remotely Christian at all. Yea, homosexuals within the Jewish community got stoned in old testiment times as per God's orders, but God never told the Jews to hate them while doing it. Im not the one who's supposed to be judging people anyway and gay people are also people, and hopefully if I properly advance God's cause any gay person I witness to will stop being gay AND not have to be judged guilty on the day of judgement if they accept Christ, everybody wins.... except Satan :D. Plus, hate really does wear on you after awhile, makes you lose perspective and all that stuff.

Oh how delicious, the dellusional "hate the sin, love the sinner' rhetoric.

Accept me, the full package, homosexuality and all or hate me; there is no middle ground.

Oh how delicious, the dellusional "hate the sin, love the sinner' rhetoric.

Accept me, the full package, homosexuality and all or hate me; there is no middle ground.
If there's no middle ground how did I just take it? and besides, I know full well that if a homosexual person dies, they'll go to hell forever, I would think this would warrent empathy to some degree on my part, preferably in the form of, I don't know, helping? I don't see how this is unreasonable.

If there's no middle ground how did I just take it? and besides, I know full well that if a homosexual person dies, they'll go to hell forever, I would think this would warrent empathy to some degree on my part, preferably in the form of, I don't know, helping? I don't see how this is unreasonable.

There is no middle ground. You hate homosexuals if you hate homosexuality. Saying "I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate what they do." is akin to saying "I don't hate black people, I just hate the fact that they are black."

And no, you don't know that a homosexual person is going to hell. You only believe that they are. And your beliefs don't matter to and should not be imposed on anyone but yourself.

If there's no middle ground how did I just take it? and besides, I know full well that if a homosexual person dies, they'll go to hell forever, I would think this would warrent empathy to some degree on my part, preferably in the form of, I don't know, helping? I don't see how this is unreasonable.
So-called christians like you never see the unreasonableness of your point of view. Care to point to a place where Jesus, you know, the guy you're supposed to be emulating, went after gays?

There is no middle ground. You hate homosexuals if you hate homosexuality. Saying "I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate what they do." is akin to saying "I don't hate black people, I just hate the fact that they are black."

And no, you don't know that a homosexual person is going to hell. You only believe that they are. And your beliefs don't matter to and should not be imposed on anyone but yourself.
I don't hate homosexuality, I simply know its wrong. I know that it is wrong when my CPU overheats and crashes my computer, but I don't hate my computer for it and take a hammer to it. I also know it is wrong to lie, steal, covet, etc. etc, and therefore I would have to hate myself along with pretty much every single person on the planet, as I have lied too many times to count as far as I can remember, I stole a slinky and a lego once, and im fairly certain i've coveted stuff once or twice. Hating this many people, including myself, would get old fast, and would annihilate the point of Jesus saying "Love your neighbor as yourself", as everyone would just hate everyone...this would get pointless fast. At any rate, just because you earnestly want me to hate homosexuals doesn't mean I will. And yes, I do know that a homosexual person who dies will go to hell, whether you accept what God said or not on the issue. Finally, the statement that my beliefs don't matter is actually 100 percent correct, because im not using my own personal beliefs, im using the beliefs Jesus told us to have, namely the belief in Him, so therefore what I believe is not of my own invention. Impose also has multiple definitions these days, in olden times it would be literally forcing someone to do something, today, it generally appears to mean trying to convince someone that something they don't like is right, especially if said person actually insists they are right.

And yes, I do know that a homosexual person who dies will go to hell, whether you accept what God said or not on the issue.
Still waiting to see where Jesus--the guy the religion is named after remember?--said anything anti-gay.

If there's no middle ground how did I just take it? and besides, I know full well that if a homosexual person dies, they'll go to hell forever, I would think this would warrent empathy to some degree on my part, preferably in the form of, I don't know, helping? I don't see how this is unreasonable.

Which is hatred in its most pure form - but rather than just coming out and saying, "I hate homosexuals', you hide behind religion - that is pathetic to say the least.

All that says to me is you have a conflict between you innner humanity of wanting to get along with everyone, whilst at the same time you wet your pants worrying about all the hell, fire and brimstone you have been told since being a young'in going to church each week.

I don't hate homosexuality, I simply know its wrong. I know that it is wrong when my CPU overheats and crashes my computer, but I don't hate my computer for it and take a hammer to it. I also know it is wrong to lie, steal, covet, etc. etc, and therefore I would have to hate myself along with pretty much every single person on the planet, as I have lied too many times to count as far as I can remember, I stole a slinky and a lego once, and im fairly certain i've coveted stuff once or twice. Hating this many people, including myself, would get old fast, and would annihilate the point of Jesus saying "Love your neighbor as yourself", as everyone would just hate everyone...this would get pointless fast. At any rate, just because you earnestly want me to hate homosexuals doesn't mean I will. And yes, I do know that a homosexual person who dies will go to hell, whether you accept what God said or not on the issue. Finally, the statement that my beliefs don't matter is actually 100 percent correct, because im not using my own personal beliefs, im using the beliefs Jesus told us to have, namely the belief in Him, so therefore what I believe is not of my own invention. Impose also has multiple definitions these days, in olden times it would be literally forcing someone to do something, today, it generally appears to mean trying to convince someone that something they don't like is right, especially if said person actually insists they are right.

Oh I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone over the age of 15. You need to learn to use paragraphs.

And like the Nazz said, I'm still waiting for evidence that Jesus said homosexuality is wrong.

Still waiting to see where Jesus--the guy the religion is named after remember?--said anything anti-gay.

Unfortunately all they can quote is some out dated laws in the old testament, and a letter from Paul - who I state, is not Jesus, never have and never will be.

Unfortunately all they can quote is some out dated laws in the old testament, and a letter from Paul - who I state, is not Jesus, never have and never will be.
Oh, I know--that's why I ask the question. :D

So-called christians like you never see the unreasonableness of your point of view. Care to point to a place where Jesus, you know, the guy you're supposed to be emulating, went after gays?
Sure. Since Jesus is God, anything God has ever said also came from Jesus, so Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 came from Him. And on the contary, I do see how unreasonable the christian point of view is on homosexuality from a wordly perspective, in fact, as I understand it, a considerable number of poeple absolutly hate it. I see quite clearly just how unreasonable many people think it is. This does not, however, change God's point of view on the issue, so in the end, it doesn't really hurt me.

I'm a Jew and I'm gay, so no matter what the christian right thinks, I'm on my way to hell! :rolleyes:

Oh I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone over the age of 15. You need to learn to use paragraphs.

And like the Nazz said, I'm still waiting for evidence that Jesus said homosexuality is wrong.

Well, I thought his use of 'olden days' is a dead give away, I remember using that when I was a young tyke to describe things that happened in the past.

Another problem, Theorb doesn't realise that belief doesn't equate to indisputable fact - religion is an idea/concept developed by humans to describe the world around us, our place in the world, our responsibilities and brings definition to our lives as to why we exist in the first place.

As soon as one makes the giant leap from that concept to the idea which Theorb embraces of 'I'm right, and everyone is wrong', all logic and reason is instantly thrown out the window.

Sure. Since Jesus is God, anything God has ever said also came from Jesus, so Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 came from Him. And on the contary, I do see how unreasonable the christian point of view is on homosexuality from a wordly perspective, in fact, as I understand it, a considerable number of poeple absolutly hate it. I see quite clearly just how unreasonable many people think it is. This does not, however, change God's point of view on the issue, so in the end, it doesn't really hurt me.
But Jesus isn't God--Jesus is God's Son (if you take the Bible literally instead of as the book of myths and fables it actually is). The co-divinity of Jesus and the Father is a church construct with no actual basis in scripture.

Good thing im not the original source of the person saying "im right and your wrong" eh? Otherwise, that would be kinda odd.....

Sure. Since Jesus is God, anything God has ever said also came from Jesus, so Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 came from Him. And on the contary, I do see how unreasonable the christian point of view is on homosexuality from a wordly perspective, in fact, as I understand it, a considerable number of poeple absolutly hate it. I see quite clearly just how unreasonable many people think it is. This does not, however, change God's point of view on the issue, so in the end, it doesn't really hurt me.

<does a quick boogie>

Jesus is Jewish, therefor, going by Jewish rules, by an individual dismissing one rule out of the Leviticus Code, they simultaneously dismiss the WHOLE code; it isn't a code of pick 'n choose - its either the whole code or nothing.

Jesus dimissed the Kosher eating requirements, which simultaneously dismissed the whole Leviticus Code - which includes the clause about buggery.

But Jesus isn't God--Jesus is God's Son (if you take the Bible literally instead of as the book of myths and fables it actually is). The co-divinity of Jesus and the Father is a church construct with no actual basis in scripture.
I don't know what Bible your talking about taking literally then, but on an unrelated note, im surprised how quickly this thread attracted so many posters dedicated solely to insiting that I hate all gay people and anything I say to the contrary only further shows my hatred....somehow.

<does a quick boogie>

Jesus is Jewish, therefor, going by Jewish rules, by an individual dismissing one rule out of the Leviticus Code, they simultaneously dismiss the WHOLE code; it isn't a code of pick 'n choose - its either the whole code or nothing.

Jesus dimissed the Kosher eating requirements, which simultaneously dismissed the whole Leviticus Code - which includes the clause about buggery.
Regardless, the question was where did Jesus ever say that gayness was bad, and since Jesus is God, He did say it, whether He later goes on to establish a new covenent doesn't change that He said it.

Jebus found his way into the thread

I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?.

Just a small point I would like to make (not sure if someone has brought it up before or not). I am in no way anti-gay or homophobic or anything like that, I just want to give you the other point of view:

Marriage (the word and practice of) is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what marriage is legally and actually defined as. So, you should be able to see why people don't want gays to get married... it is in all essence, impossible for it to be done. Marriage requires both a man and a woman... something that gays do not have in their partnership.

Now before you start bashing this, realize that this is actually what marriage is and has been for hundreds of years. To allow gays to marry would require changing the definition of a word (now how often is that done except through mistake?).

I don't know what Bible your talking about taking literally then, but on an unrelated note, im surprised how quickly this thread attracted so many posters dedicated solely to insiting that I hate all gay people and anything I say to the contrary only further shows my hatred....somehow.
Well, I thought my last post was pretty clear, but hey, I'll give it another chance.

The Bible is a book of fables and myths, and while occasionally accurate historically, is far more often inaccurate. It's like the Arthur legends--there was a King Arthur, but the sword in the stone bit? Didn't happen.

But many people, yourself included apparently, take it literally, as though Moses really did part the Red Sea and that Jesus, rather than being a rabbi, was divine in nature.

You claimed that Jesus was God, that they were the same being. My reply is that the co-divinity of Jesus and the Father is a church construct (and, I might add, not a universal one, as some Protestant churches don't believe in a Trinity). It is not supported by scripture, and I'll challenge you to find an unequivocal scripture that states the co-divinity and co-eternity of Jesus and the Father.

I don't know what Bible your talking about taking literally then, but on an unrelated note, im surprised how quickly this thread attracted so many posters dedicated solely to insiting that I hate all gay people and anything I say to the contrary only further shows my hatred....somehow.

Perhaps it was the fact that you are making an argument based on beliefs (which are not even held in common) and without any type of fact or logic.

I really don’t know that many people who “hate” gays. I know a great many people who are uncomfortable around them or feel that they are doing something wrong. I suppose the negative feeling come from misinterpreted religion, fear of the unfamiliar, fear of not knowing themselves and possibly the need to feel superior.
That and people are fucking idiots.

Just a small point I would like to make (not sure if someone has brought it up before or not). I am in no way anti-gay or homophobic or anything like that, I just want to give you the other point of view:

Marriage (the word and practice of) is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what marriage is legally and actually defined as. So, you should be able to see why people don't want gays to get married... it is in all essence, impossible for it to be done. Marriage requires both a man and a woman... something that gays do not have in their partnership.

Now before you start bashing this, realize that this is actually what marriage is and has been for hundreds of years. To allow gays to marry would require changing the definition of a word (now how often is that done except through mistake?).That bolded part there? That's where you go horribly, terribly wrong in this argument.

The fact is that there has never been a single, cross-cultural definition of marriage. In fact, until recently (the last fifty years or so in the US), marriage was more a matter of property transfer than anything else. There's even an argument that the medieval church had a ceremony that would be the modern equivalent of same-sex marriage (but only for men--no lesbian marriages).

My point is that the definition of marriage has been in flux throughout human history, so why shouldn't we be willing to look at the definition again? Times change, societies change--why not this as well?

and I'll challenge you to find an unequivocal scripture that states the co-divinity and co-eternity of Jesus and the Father.
I could actually do that, but it should take too much time and help out someone I disagree with, so I won’t.

I could actually do that, but it should take too much time and help out someone I disagree with, so I won’t.
Well, the usual reply is the "I and the Father are one." But to my mind, that's not unequivocal, because of the clumsiness of 1) the english language and 2) the nature of translation. "I and the Father are one" could be saying that they're co-equal, but it could also mean that they are simply in agreement (which is the position taken by anti-trinitarian protestant churches). So it's not definitive to me, nor is it to a significant minority of people who call themselves Christians.

That bolded part there? That's where you go horribly, terribly wrong in this argument.

The fact is that there has never been a single, cross-cultural definition of marriage. In fact, until recently (the last fifty years or so in the US), marriage was more a matter of property transfer than anything else. There's even an argument that the medieval church had a ceremony that would be the modern equivalent of same-sex marriage (but only for men--no lesbian marriages).

My point is that the definition of marriage has been in flux throughout human history, so why shouldn't we be willing to look at the definition again? Times change, societies change--why not this as well?

The only reason I said hundreds of years is that the definition of the word marriage, in the english language, has only be traced back to a certain point. That does not mean, however, that the definition was any different.

While there has never been a complete cross-culture definition for marriage, we aren't looking for that. We aren't looking to establish a law for the world and all of its cultures... only the one that founded our country. Thus we are only looking for a definition for the language spoken by those people... it being english.

The definition in western culture has not been that much in flux. Like it or not, the definition and practice of marriage in the western culture has always been a man and a woman.

Well, the usual reply is the "I and the Father are one." But to my mind, that's not unequivocal, because of the clumsiness of 1) the english language and 2) the nature of translation. "I and the Father are one" could be saying that they're co-equal, but it could also mean that they are simply in agreement (which is the position taken by anti-trinitarian protestant churches). So it's not definitive to me, nor is it to a significant minority of people who call themselves Christians.

Well, nothing in religion is going to be definitive. It is a faith and belief system. One that in its very nature, people are obviously not going to agree on...

Well, nothing in religion is going to be definitive. It is a faith and belief system. One that in its very nature, people are obviously not going to agree on...
That's precisely the point I'm trying to make to Theorb. He/she is speaking in absolute certainty, but in religion, everything is uncertain.

My views are simple, gays or lesbians have no exact placement in the evolution of the human race, therefore it is considered a mental health problem which posses no threat to a human being and so it is not considered a problem. In the understanding of, if and why, it is considered taboo, we must look at the actual evolution of the human race. Gays and lesbians do not have any position in the evolution tree of the human race therefore the whole topic and everything revolving around this subject is to amuse the human brain .

L.

The only reason I said hundreds of years is that the definition of the word marriage, in the english language, has only be traced back to a certain point. That does not mean, however, that the definition was any different.

While there has never been a complete cross-culture definition for marriage, we aren't looking for that. We aren't looking to establish a law for the world and all of its cultures... only the one that founded our country. Thus we are only looking for a definition for the language spoken by those people... it being english.

The definition in western culture has not been that much in flux. Like it or not, the definition and practice of marriage in the western culture has always been a man and a woman.

But your definition of marrage as one man/one woman is a modern Christian one. The problem is that the US is not an exclusivly Christian nation. This is a secular nation. One religion cannot force its beliefs, traditions, and rules on the rest of us.

Many of the pre-columbian cultures native to the US practiced same sex marrage ( http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1c.html ). That alone seems to be reason enough to view it as part of our inherited culture and to expand the definition marrage as such.

Mutations eventually fade away. Gay people have existed throughout the ages. Its a biological phenomena, not some mutation.

mutations only fade away if the biological conditions exist to force them away... technically, pale skin is a mutation... like any good recessive trait. But because enviornmental conditions dont exist to suffienty suppress its re-emergence, it continues to flourish.

As for hating gays, isn't it just like anything else humans dont understand. You fear what you dont know... and how does that old saying go ? fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering ? Seems to apply as a universal truth of human nature.

But in reality, I dont think most straight people "hate" gays, simply are unconfortable with them, and that feel is relayed as dislike or hatrid (as most people tend to over exadurate their preceptions)

Also few appreciate a preceived "outside" element trying to influence the system in place.. when it comes to government reform. Like marraige and that goodness. Many wouldn't even accept a modified legal union to acheive the "rights" gap, but rather DEMAND the term marraige be permitted. Personally, I dont think the government should be giving rights out to any special "Privliages" out, married or otherwise... and anyone joined by a justice of the peace should have a civil union.. straight or gay! Marriage should stay where it belongs, in a house of god.

1st post, so I'll make it suck.

I hate gay people 'cause they dress better than me.:D

Even then, mutations != bad.

Evolution is built on mutations...without them, the primordial algae wouldn't have produced homonids, and homonids wouldn't have produced vodka, and I wouldn't bne drunk right now...so fuck off with mutations=bad!

ANd I have no problems with gay people that I don't have with straight people...sexuality isn't a big factor for me. Vodka, however, is...

My views are simple, gays or lesbians have no exact placement in the evolution of the human race, therefore it is considered a mental health problem which posses no threat to a human being and so it is not considered a problem. In the understanding of, if and why, it is considered taboo, we must look at the actual evolution of the human race. Gays and lesbians do not have any position in the evolution tree of the human race therefore the whole topic and everything revolving around this subject is to amuse the human brain .

L.

To say that homosexuals have no position in human evolution is, I'm afraid, pure conjecture. There are a number of theories about how and why there are and continue to be homosexuals in the populations of many species, though they are, of course, only theories.

Actually, in times of shortage, homosexuals could conserve the human race by NOT breeding, and thereby ensuring the survival of their siblings (which have just as much of their DNA as their potential offspring...) and thus continuing the race on the whole. So it is with many other animals. And so, evolutionarily, homosxuality is VERY IMPORTANT in the survival of a species, especially when resources are scarce.

Evolution is built on mutations...without them, the primordial algae wouldn't have produced homonids, and homonids wouldn't have produced vodka, and I wouldn't bne drunk right now...so fuck off with mutations=bad!


While mutations are bad and good based only on the enviornmental conditions in which they exist... homosexuality seems atleast in this case to serve no logical purpose. It is by all intense and purposes for every species to seek reproduction. Homosexuality seems to run contrary to this natural system, and fails to produce an meaningful purpose otherwise.

Perhaps its natures little way of regulating population growth ?? Since humans can largely overcome enviornmental constrains like food supply, weather, or disease.. this is the backup.

Regardless, the question was where did Jesus ever say that gayness was bad, and since Jesus is God, He did say it, whether He later goes on to establish a new covenent doesn't change that He said it.

Which doesn't address the two issues I raise.

Want back up your dogma, counter my argument with evidence.

Actually, in times of shortage, homosexuals could conserve the human race by NOT breeding, and thereby ensuring the survival of their siblings (which have just as much of their DNA as their potential offspring...) and thus continuing the race on the whole. So it is with many other animals. And so, evolutionarily, homosxuality is VERY IMPORTANT in the survival of a species, especially when resources are scarce.

While I made the same note, it would be irrisponsible to not mention, nature (in times of resource sortage) naturally controls population growth with those simple limitations. Once the limits have been passed, the population can't sustain itself and is automatically regulated by said resources (food, water.. air)

Infact, homosexuality seems to be vastly unimportant in this case, because those willing (or able) to reporduce may do so unregulated if they so chose (essentially negating the effects of the homosexuals not reproducing).

I would say homosexuality is just an anomoly or diviant behavior, who has yet to face enviornmental conditions to warrent its extraction from soceity in general.

While mutations are bad and good based only on the enviornmental conditions in which they exist... homosexuality seems atleast in this case to serve to logical purpose. It is by all intense and purposes for every species to seek reproduction. Homosexuality seems to run contrary to this natural system, and fails to produce an meaningful purpose otherwise.

Perhaps its natures little way of regulating population growth ?? Since humans can largely overcome enviornmental constrains like food supply, weather, or disease.. this is the backup.

See my last post..homosexuality is gene's insurance against shortage and overpopulation...though, I am drunk...blame the vodka.

See my last post..homosexuality is gene's insurance against shortage and overpopulation...though, I am drunk...blame the vodka.

already responded to that ^_^

Gays and lesbians do not have any position in the evolution tree of the human race therefore the whole topic and everything revolving around this subject is to amuse the human brain .

While natural selection is all about passing on your genes it does not mean everyone has to be a breeder to be succesful - family after all tends to share your genes.

I would say homosexuality is just an anomoly or diviant behavior, who has yet to face enviornmental conditions to warrent its extraction from soceity in general.

Personally, I would say that homosexuality is a....hmm...valid expression of one's self which doesn't hinder genetics or population and has usrvived millions of years of evolution in nearly every mammalian species, with little to no moral pitfalls involved, so there;s no real reason to prohibit it, But again...the vodka talking.

While natural selection is all about passing on your genes it does not mean everyone has to be a breeder to be succesful - family after all tends to share your genes.

Exactly...your siblings account for about 50% of your DNA, just as much as your children, so ensuring their survival is just like ensuring your own offsprings' survival, in which case homosexuality will benefit a species in a time of shortage of resources, where fewer mouths will be available to take them.

While natural selection is all about passing on your genes it does not mean everyone has to be a breeder to be succesful - family after all tends to share your genes.

true enough.. but technically, in terms of natural selection... to be successful is to pass on your genes. Natural selection is just saying the strongest will survive.. to be successful in this, you must live long enough to pass your genes (which merit reproduction)

The only way to identify a successful gene is to see it passed to another. If a gene is unable to be spread ... then it is inherintly weak not meriting reproduction

Personally, I would say that homosexuality is a....hmm...valid expression of one's self which doesn't hinder genetics or population and has usrvived millions of years of evolution in nearly every mammalian species, with little to no moral pitfalls involved, so there;s no real reason to prohibit it, But again...the vodka talking.

Im of course only arguing in a biological sense, not moralistic, or psychological. Homosexuality in fact exists as a biological relaity beyond just self expression. Other species (some types of birds) in fact employ it for very valid reasons... but for humans, in terms of biology.. it seems to serve no biological purpose. As I argued before, homosexuality has surived only because no enviornmental conditions has yet to exist to warrent its elimination. But because it has survived is not nessearly to say it has made meaningful contributions to our evolutionary growth. As such, If we were a species focus'ed on furthering our own biological development, the elimination of homosexuality may well be warrented, since it is contrary to evolution itself.

Just a small point I would like to make (not sure if someone has brought it up before or not). I am in no way anti-gay or homophobic or anything like that, I just want to give you the other point of view:

Marriage (the word and practice of) is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what marriage is legally and actually defined as. So, you should be able to see why people don't want gays to get married... it is in all essence, impossible for it to be done. Marriage requires both a man and a woman... something that gays do not have in their partnership.

Now before you start bashing this, realize that this is actually what marriage is and has been for hundreds of years. To allow gays to marry would require changing the definition of a word (now how often is that done except through mistake?).

Well, it depends on what you define and use marriage as. Long ago, when there were little villages, and everyone knew each other, marriage was a public declaration that two people were to be living together and have children - hence the old story of 'it takes a village to raise a child' - same went for married couples, and the closeness that all villagers had for each other.

Fast foward 1500 or so years, we're no longer small villages, marriage is simply now seen as merely a formality for families to woo over, spend copious amounts of money on, and for a random uncle to get drunk and make a twit of himself.

So actually, marriage has slowly changed, from a public declaration, or if you're in gentry or aristocracy, the formal combining of two major families and there assets. So it would be wise to accept that marriage has changed.

As for same sex marriage - why? thats the question people must ask; look at the reasons why, then make a decision. People don't want marriage at the religious level, just the rights, and protection that comes with marriage; so drop the word marriage and see it as an issue of rights.

Exactly...your siblings account for about 50% of your DNA, just as much as your children, so ensuring their survival is just like ensuring your own offsprings' survival, in which case homosexuality will benefit a species in a time of shortage of resources, where fewer mouths will be available to take them.

Your argument is actually extremely detremental to the idea of natural selection. You are artifically helping genes to survive rather then having their own merits acheive this. This is largely why we as species (humans) are no longer evolving.. because weaker genes/traits are kept in the gene pool through means of medical technology. By artificially sustaining these weak genes we weaken our own gene pool.

If yours or your siblings genes warrented survival they would beable to achieve this on their own merits. You helping them to survive should be of no consequence, and if they in fact relied on you to survive, this means they are insuffience in of themselves and should otherwise be eliminated.

To this end, homosexuality (by the logic of your argument) in fact serves as a detremental force against natural selection and evolution

Im of course only arguing in a biological sense, not moralistic, or psychological. Homosexuality in fact exists as a biological relaity beyond just self expression. Other species (some types of birds) in fact employ it for very valid reasons... but for humans, in terms of biology.. it seems to serve no biological purpose. As I argued before, homosexuality has surived only because no enviornmental conditions has yet to exist to warrent its elimination. But because it has survived is not nessearly to say it has made meaningful contributions to our evolutionary growth. As such, If we were a species focus'ed on furthering our own biological development, the elimination of homosexuality may well be warrented, since it is contrary to evolution itself.

If I were a lesser man, I would tell you that you have used too many big words...but I am, in fact, not a lesser man.

I concede the fact that evolution MAY have fielded no situations where homosexuality would be put to the test...but I point you to the various bottlenexks of our evolutionary history, where the human race has been limited to a mere 10,000 individuals, to show that the evidence suggests that homosexuality either has never, ever put homosapiens in detriment or has actually helped them evolutionarily.

As I have admitted, I am drunk, and I do not know how much longer I may persue this interesting conversation, but I thank you for your contributions nontheless.

If yours or your siblings genes warrented survival they would beable to achieve this on their own merits. You helping them to survive should be of no consequence, and if they in fact relied on you to survive, this means they are insuffience in of themselves and should otherwise be eliminated.


You seem to be assuming that natural selection only works for an individual. Why could it not work for herds ?

Biologically speaking,



I agree, As far as continuing the genetic growth of the species it does appear useless. Yet I can't shake the question: if useless, why has it persisted, even through the great dying? I'm interested in well-thought answers . . . .

As for myself, I have no problem with homosexuals of any stripe. My feeling is that a person should be completely free to love any damn person they please (love, real, committed love, is too rare as it is). But biologically speaking I think it is an interesting question. Any geneticists or biologists out there with some interesting theories?

New Shawmut

If I were a lesser man, I would tell you that you have used too many big words...but I am, in fact, not a lesser man.

I concede the fact that evolution MAY have fielded no situations where homosexuality would be put to the test...but I point you to the various bottlenexks of our evolutionary history, where the human race has been limited to a mere 10,000 individuals, to show that the evidence suggests that homosexuality either has never, ever put homosapiens in detriment or has actually helped them evolutionarily.

As I have admitted, I am drunk, and I do not know how much longer I may persue this interesting conversation, but I thank you for your contributions nontheless.

You assume at these times that homosexuality was even present as a trait. Thsi presumption may not be a valid one. There are species which do not exhibt homosexual tendencies, and humans may have developed homosexuality as trait only later in the evolutionary ladder when we as a species were far more sustainable.

The most important thing in evolution is the gene pool, and the number of genes inplay as well as the variety of genes. If not a large enough gene pool or suffience variety exhists, the race ultimately dies out. Given this reality it his hard to see how homosexuality acts as a suppliment to evolution. This of course then leads to the argument I made just a few minutes ago as to how it actually HURTS us in the system of natural selection.

You seem to be assuming that natural selection only works for an individual. Why could it not work for herds ?

Natural selection only works for one thing, being individual genes themselves... And if we look at the evidence nature gives us, there is little support for the argument that homosexuality exists to suppliment genes of a certain family line. In fact herds and familes for that matter within nature seem to show the exact opposite reality, where younglings will be sent out (after a certain age) to survive on their own, in effect testing their genes against enviornmental conditions. If their genes are strong they survive thus completing the circle of natural selection, if not.. they die.

Given these realities, why would nature then run against everything it has set up (in testing genes) to sort of insulate the genes from those tests nature sets out ? Something just dosn't jive there

Biologically speaking,



I agree, As far as continuing the genetic growth of the species it does appear useless. Yet I can't shake the question: if useless, why has it persisted, even through the great dying? I'm interested in well-thought answers . . . .

As for myself, I have no problem with homosexuals of any stripe. My feeling is that a person should be completely free to love any damn person they please (love, real, committed love, is too rare as it is). But biologically speaking I think it is an interesting question. Any geneticists or biologists out there with some interesting theories?

New Shawmut

I just have one question, and one comment to this. One.. what is the "great dying" ? and two, perhaps its that other genetic superiorities existed to sufficently suppliment the difficenies persented by homosexuality so that genes did exist. If we say homosexuality is in some way link to genetics, we must presume then that it is a recessive trait and could well exist within individuals as a repressed recessive trait, only to remerge when conditions were again suitable

I just have one question, and one comment to this. One.. what is the "great dying" ? and two, perhaps its that other genetic superiorities existed to sufficently suppliment the difficenies persented by homosexuality so that genes did exist. If we say homosexuality is in some way link to genetics, we must presume then that it is a recessive trait and could well exist within individuals as a repressed recessive trait, only to remerge when conditions were again suitable

Or maybe there is just alot of random shit that occurs in nature which can only be truely explained when one looks in retrospect.

The reason we are gay shouldn't make a dinkers of difference to how we are treated as individuals, and as members of society.

Or maybe there is just alot of random shit that occurs in nature which can only be truely explained when one looks in retrospect.

The reason we are gay shouldn't make a dinkers of difference to how we are treated as individuals, and as members of society.

Well the orginal question was to inquire why it was there is "hatrid" towards gays.. while I suspect there is far less "hatrid" that some might suggest, I suspect it is born in the nature of humanity to fear the unknown. It is not known where, why or how homosexuality really works.. thus it is feared.

Trying to dercine where it actually came from, why it actually exists goes a long way in bridging the gap of uncertainty (which leads to discomfort, and ultimatly is preceived as "hatrid") and altering the way in whih homosexuals are treated.

It all rather seems quite logical to me ^_^

I have a problem with gays.




If there are three gays in a bar, and every time five gays enter the bar, two more leave, how many are in the bar after thirty-five gays have entered the bar?


Logicall math i guess ... you mean 3 persons are in a bar ,

every time 5 persons enters 2 leave the bar so logically
not 5 persons enters but 3 persons enter , so mathematically

3 + 7x 3 = 24 persons are staying in the bar until closure time ;)

and for the record , Persons are persons we cant deny gay exist some are repulsive against those people but keep in mind. What if you become gay and love men , i know its in my head a gros idea but what if . I think nobody ever stood the position from how would a gay look upon the people who hate gay people. Same as for lesbians , but society thinks rather lesbians are okay. because men thinks Lesbian are the coolest think, ( they hope they're bi and stuff ) so they can have a tri-some i guess.. thus to the conclusion that lesbians are more accepted.

I don't think I hate them, I honestly think they are a mutation. I wouldn't kill them off(death is bad ;)), but I wouldn't support them.

Human beings are a mutation.

Homosexuality occurs in more species than just humans. Quite a few animal species have contitstent gay populations. So technically, if homosexuality is a mutation, then it was here before our entire species crawled out of the premordial soup.

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.

I agree, who cares about someone elses privat life, let other people live their life the way they want to.

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?
Most hatred is illogical.

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

Actually, those homophobes are even the first to get erections looking at gay male porn!

My cat bummed (is that the word?) his son... :eek:
My cat owns. :D
r.i.p. Leone :(

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.I, personally, don't have problems with Gay/Lesbian people.

Human beings are a mutation.

Homosexuality occurs in more species than just humans. Quite a few animal species have contitstent gay populations. So technically, if homosexuality is a mutation, then it was here before our entire species crawled out of the premordial soup.
And how many of those species form Permanment and Exsclusive Homosexual relationships?

Yes, threat to society. Consider, for a moment as gays increase. Gay people do not reproduce. As such, gay people should be dead, died out. However, they are not, they continue to previal in larger and larger numbers. Now, let's say that this trend continues; all of the people of a generation are gay.
I don't think that there are more gay people than ever before. They're just more visible.

Not only do I support male homosexuality, but I promote it. More women for me!
This is also my attitude. It's the basis for my casually negative attitude to female homosexuality.

You only used the he/she once. The rest of the time, you used generic he. Perhaps the singular they could help in preventing you from making similar errors in future?

Apology accepted.
About 80% of posters on this forum are male. Pardon the assumption.

And how many of those species form Permanment and Exsclusive Homosexual relationships?

All of the ones that form permanent exclusive heterosexual relationships do.

ANd I have no problems with gay people that I don't have with straight people...sexuality isn't a big factor for me. Vodka, however, is...


I don't like vodka, I don't understand it, you might even say I hate it!!!


(Scotch is much better)

Evolution is built on mutations...without them, the primordial algae wouldn't have produced homonids, and homonids wouldn't have produced vodka, and I wouldn't bne drunk right now...so fuck off with mutations=bad!

!= was not a typo; it means "not equal".

It just seems illogical. Are people afraid that they are going to get ass raped by a gay person?

Why exactly do people feel that gay people are a "threat"? I look at the gay marriage issue and it's just stupid. Opponents claim that it would spoil the "sanctity" of marriage -- but, divorce rates have been climbing and most marriages end in shambles anyway. Where's the "sanctity"?

What about lesbians? Those same homophobes are usually the first to get erections looking at lesbo porn. I mean wtf?

People make me vomit.
What about people who have been raped by a gay person..

What about people who have been raped by a gay person..

So by that logic, a woman who has been raped by a man has a right to hate all men?

Why? Because God told us to. What, are you a godless, homosexual communist who loves terrorism and won't fight for the freedom of other countries to obey the US? We will soon send our small, Republican government's massive forces after you for treason!

I do not hate anyone each to their own live and let live

I find homophobia to be rather weak.

It is a poor reflection of one's character and strength of will when one is threatened by a sexual orientation.

In all honesty, why should one even care?

I don't think that there are more gay people than ever before. They're just more visible.

Actually there are more gay people than ever before. While their percentage share of the population may not have changed; the population itself has risen ergo there are more gay people than ever before.

:D

Well, I thought my last post was pretty clear, but hey, I'll give it another chance.

The Bible is a book of fables and myths, and while occasionally accurate historically, is far more often inaccurate. It's like the Arthur legends--there was a King Arthur, but the sword in the stone bit? Didn't happen.

But many people, yourself included apparently, take it literally, as though Moses really did part the Red Sea and that Jesus, rather than being a rabbi, was divine in nature.

You claimed that Jesus was God, that they were the same being. My reply is that the co-divinity of Jesus and the Father is a church construct (and, I might add, not a universal one, as some Protestant churches don't believe in a Trinity). It is not supported by scripture, and I'll challenge you to find an unequivocal scripture that states the co-divinity and co-eternity of Jesus and the Father.
Challenge accepted, though I question what you mean as unequivocal. And sorry it took so long to reply, I had to go to sleep.

John 5:18 says after Jesus told the Jews that His Father was always working, even the Jews who wanted to murder Him realized this was "making himself equal with God" through what He was saying.

John 8:58 reads "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!" There were no humans who lived that long, and no angel ever insisted that God was their father, So He must be sharing in the co-eternity of God.

John 20:28 is a pretty blatant one, Jesus has just ressurected himself and is proving that He is back to the disciple Thomas, so this verse says "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" The Bible also makes it pretty clear that God is the only God in places such as John 17:3 where Christ is literally praying to Himself, and says "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Isaiah 43:10 also demonstrates there could be no other God, as the end of it reads, "...Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." So the only God Thomas could of been equating Christ to is the God, and Jesus told Thomas that now that he had seen Christ he believed, He didn't lash out at Thomas for calling Him God, something you'd think He would do if He wasn't God.

Skipping ahead in the Bible, we find Revelation 22:13, which reads, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" and it is revealed at the end of that section in Revelation 22:16 that Jesus is the one saying this, clearly that at least makes him co-eternal.

Looking for more straightforward claims, Titus 2:13 reads "while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:1 also reads "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, (Paragraph break) to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have recieved a faith as precious as ours:" Colossians 2:9 reads, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," 2 Thessolonians 1:12 reads "We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".

Reading through some of the posts after yours before I made my reply, I noticed you pointed out that the "general" verse people like me can use equates Jesus to God through a 'weak' translation. I don't really want to go through the entire list of comparisons that equate Jesus to God,, but just to show you im not giving out some newfangled interpretation of the Bible, here's an adequate list of comparisons at http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusisgod.htm .

Im of course only arguing in a biological sense, not moralistic, or psychological. Homosexuality in fact exists as a biological relaity beyond just self expression. Other species (some types of birds) in fact employ it for very valid reasons... but for humans, in terms of biology.. it seems to serve no biological purpose. As I argued before, homosexuality has surived only because no enviornmental conditions has yet to exist to warrent its elimination.
You and a few others are making the unfounded assumption that homosexuality must be purely genetic.
If it were purely genetic, I'd think there would quite definately be an environmental condition that would warrant its elimination: the fact that their drive to breed won't actually cause them to have offspring.

Your argument is actually extremely detremental to the idea of natural selection. You are artifically helping genes to survive rather then having their own merits acheive this. This is largely why we as species (humans) are no longer evolving.. because weaker genes/traits are kept in the gene pool through means of medical technology. By artificially sustaining these weak genes we weaken our own gene pool.
Load of junk. It isn't that we've stopped evolving, it's that we are in an environment where fitness is a much looser condition than in the wild, and where technological advance is outpacing genetic change.
Your suggestion that something goes against natural selection is impossible. The fit survive, the unfit don't survive, but you have forgotten that fitness is dependant on environment. The people with "weaker genes" that you refer to, since they are surviving, are obviously fit enough to survive, so there's no reasn that Darwinism suggests snything about them leaving.
If yours or your siblings genes warrented survival they would beable to achieve this on their own merits. You helping them to survive should be of no consequence, and if they in fact relied on you to survive, this means they are insuffience in of themselves and should otherwise be eliminated.
You are making the mistake of turning Darwin's "this does happen" into a "this ought to happen". Darwin never said that anything 'should be eliminated', darwin said that unfit traits don't spread.
To this end, homosexuality (by the logic of your argument) in fact serves as a detremental force against natural selection and evolution
Again, there is no way to go against natural selection or evolution.

Sure. Since Jesus is God, anything God has ever said also came from Jesus, so Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 came from Him. And on the contary, I do see how unreasonable the christian point of view is on homosexuality from a wordly perspective, in fact, as I understand it, a considerable number of poeple absolutly hate it. I see quite clearly just how unreasonable many people think it is. This does not, however, change God's point of view on the issue, so in the end, it doesn't really hurt me.

So the supposed supreme creator and ruler of the universe is irrational and a bit dim....*whew* Scary thought.

I would so make an awesome god. :D

Evolution is built on mutations...without them, the primordial algae wouldn't have produced homonids, and homonids wouldn't have produced vodka, and I wouldn't bne drunk right now...so fuck off with mutations=bad!

Umm...you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of !=. In code, (or C++ and Java at least, I can't speak for C or Basic or whatever) '!' means 'not', thus '!=' is 'not equal'.