NationStates Jolt Archive

Mostly, it's people who have full support for gay rights on one side, and people who think gays are either abominations or choosing it on the other side. But I've never seen anybody who shares my view, and I want to see what you think of it.

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.

I got nothing against homosexuals having rights. I haven't read all the rights, so I'm not sure if all of them apply to them, but, sure, they can have rights. But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.

*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*

Homosexuality isnt a disease and therefore cannot be "cured".

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.Um...homosexuals aren't sterile.
Homosexuals have reproduced (Melissa Etheridge and her former wife, anyone?)
Heterosexuals are also quite often unwilling to reproduce, by your logic we would have to force them to reproduce.
Heterosexuals are sometimes sterile, does this mean that sterile people are bad?

Well, something within me makes me unwilling to reproduce. Think I can be cured, too?

*and yeah, I don't know why I keep answering, either...*

Homosexuals can reproduce if that's all you want them to do.

Homosexuality isnt a disease and therefore cannot be "cured".

My friend, after the massive advance we've had in the last century, if we survive another millenia we'll be able to cure death.

Um...homosexuals aren't sterile.
Homosexuals have reproduced (Melissa Etheridge and her former wife, anyone?)
Heterosexuals are also quite often unwilling to reproduce, by your logic we would have to force them to reproduce.
Heterosexuals are sometimes sterile, does this mean that sterile people are bad?

Try reading my post again and then answer.

Intersting logic... I'm heterosexual, but I will continue to refuse to reproduce. I'm glad that you are willing to grant me "rights", but I'm slightly amused that this decision seems to make me "bad" in your eyes.

I But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce,
What a pathetic view on life.
and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.
There's nothing in homosexuality that makes you unwilling to reproduce. And nothing that makes you unable to reproduce, either.

But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.
There's about a smuch 'curing' homosexuality as there is 'curing' being male. The Elk bless us all that idiocy is something that can sometimes be cured.

And benficial in what way?

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.Ah, many a theory of nature says so, doesn't it? Why do animals have homosexual tendencies then, if it's so natural to only have sex to reproduce and only like members of the opposite sex?

*Awaits irrelevant cries of "Are you suggesting we behave like animals?" that don't address the point*

Intersting logic... I'm heterosexual, but I will continue to refuse to reproduce. I'm glad that you are willing to grant me "rights", but I'm slightly amused that this decision seems to make me "bad" in your eyes.

Bad for you. If you're unwilling to reproduce, you're either homosexual, in which case you could be a brilliant specimen and thus are making things worse for the rest of us, or you could just be a heterosexual who probably shouldn't reproduce anyway.

The Elk bless us all that idiocy is something that can sometimes be cured.
Mmm ... elk ....

Is there a pressing need for reproduction on this planet that we ought to cure homosexuality so we have more breeders?

Bad for you. If you're unwilling to reproduce, you're either homosexual, in which case you could be a brilliant specimen and thus are making things worse for the rest of us, or you could just be a heterosexual who probably shouldn't reproduce anyway.

Actually, I would have to be filed under "bisexual, but with better things to do than looking after shitty brats".
In what way would that be bad for anybody?

Is there a pressing need for reproduction on this planet that we ought to cure homosexuality so we have more breeders?We all know that 3 billion people is not enough :D

Intersting logic... I'm heterosexual, but I will continue to refuse to reproduce. I'm glad that you are willing to grant me "rights", but I'm slightly amused that this decision seems to make me "bad" in your eyes.
Just feel honored and keep it up. And don't forget to mention you're bisexual, making you 1/2 bad, plus that silly refusal of you, let's say, 1/5 bad, that'd make you, umm, 7/10 bad, making you available for limited membership in the baddy-bad club, please find your silver badge in the mail.

My friend, after the massive advance we've had in the last century, if we survive another millenia we'll be able to cure death.

Homosexuality is generally regarded as either down to genetics or cultural influence of some sort (never some invasive foreign pathogen that can be removed). Does that mean you would support either genetic screening and engineering of embryos and parents for the former, or literal brainwashing (or perhaps the complete regulation of free expression to control the cultural aspect) for the latter?

Ah, many a theory of nature says so, doesn't it? Why do animals have homosexual tendencies then, if it's so natural to only have sex to reproduce and only like members of the opposite sex?

And what's to say that homosexual animals aren't bad for their species? I know some endangered primates who'd like to remove themselves from the endangered list.

My friend, after the massive advance we've had in the last century, if we survive another millenia we'll be able to cure death.


So do you think they might come up with a Gay Vaccine sometime in the next thousand years? While theyre at it, maybe they can come up with one for racism,prejudice, and self righteousness.

Try reading my post again and then answer.
<Rereads post.> Nope, it's still as nonsensical as it was the first time I read it.

As a couple of others have said, some of us heterosexuals have no intention of ever reproducing. Some people are infertile, some of us just don't want to procreate. I don't see how gay men or women are all that different in this regard, therefore.

...you could just be a heterosexual who probably shouldn't reproduce anyway...Even if that is correct, why is it such a bad thing in your eyes?

So do you think they might come up with a Gay Vaccine sometime in the next thousand years? While theyre at it, maybe they can come up with one for racism,prejudice, and self righteousness.
Ooh, snap!

Jesus Christ - is there anything/anyone you don't hate K-P? The purpose of life is not solely to reproduce, although that is something that happens a lot. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality - and since it is not a disease it cannot be cured. It is perfectly natural and there's nout wrong with homosexuality, so lay off.

Mostly, it's people who have full support for gay rights on one side, and people who think gays are either abominations or choosing it on the other side. But I've never seen anybody who shares my view, and I want to see what you think of it.

If you've never met somebody with the view you go on to describe, then you need to get out more. Your particular brand of ignorance is very common.

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.

1) Scientific theories of nature say absolutely nothing about the "purpose of life."
2) Getting one's genes into the next generation does not require that one produce biological children of one's own.
3) Many human beings are not interested in biologically reproducing. Many humans believe that passing on one's values and one's history is more important than making babies that look like you.
4) Many homosexuals can, and do, reproduce. Homosexuals are every bit as capable of reproducing as heterosexuals are. There is no connection between homosexuality an infertility.


I got nothing against homosexuals having rights. I haven't read all the rights, so I'm not sure if all of them apply to them, but, sure, they can have rights.
How very generous of you.

But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.

And what of those homosexuals who don't want to be "cured"? Will you decide that, while it's nice for them to have "rights" and all, they still should be forced to submit to your "cure"? For the good of society, of course...

You seriously need to get over yourself. Not everybody is interested in the kind of sex that happens to get YOU off. Not everybody wants to make babies. Not everybody thinks that human society will benefit from further restricting the types of genital smooshing that go on.

Most of us got past the "cooties" stage when we were in middle school.


*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*
You're not a Nazi, you're just another ignorant, sex-phobic, pitiable homophobe. The good news is that you have the ability to learn, grow, and better yourself.

Homosexuality is generally regarded as either down to genetics or cultural influence of some sort (never some invasive foreign pathogen that can be removed). Does that mean you would support either genetic screening and engineering of embryos and parents for the former, or literal brainwashing (or perhaps the complete regulation of free expression to control the cultural aspect) for the latter?

Well, if it's genetic, we can fix it, eventually. If it's social (although I doubt it), we need a new society.

I hope we someday can cure heterosexuality. We've made great strides, but still there are pockets of resistance that need to be crushed.

And what's to say that homosexual animals aren't bad for their species? I know some endangered primates who'd like to remove themselves from the endangered list.

Really?

Tell you that themselves, did they?

So do you think they might come up with a Gay Vaccine sometime in the next thousand years? While theyre at it, maybe they can come up with one for racism,prejudice, and self righteousness.

Racism, prejudice and self-righteousness are social attitudes. Homosexuality is an inherent physical difference.

And what's to say that homosexual animals aren't bad for their species? I know some endangered primates who'd like to remove themselves from the endangered list.

Our species currently counts 6.5 billion individuals and you're worried about extinction???

Well, if it's genetic, we can fix it, eventually. If it's social (although I doubt it), we need a new society.
Sorry, but it's both and neither.

Homosexuality DOES appear to have a genetic component, but it is most definitely and conclusively NOT 100% genetic. That's been established long ago. Read a book.

I hope we someday can cure heterosexuality. We've made great strides, but still there are pockets of resistance that need to be crushed.

I one for one welcome our new gloriously dressed overlords.

I hope we someday can cure heterosexuality. We've made great strides, but still there are pockets of resistance that need to be crushed.

That's just stupid.

Ah, many a theory of nature says so, doesn't it? Why do animals have homosexual tendencies then, if it's so natural to only have sex to reproduce and only like members of the opposite sex?

*Awaits irrelevant cries of "Are you suggesting we behave like animals?" that don't address the point*

Are you suggesting we behave like animals, Kievan?
Your "many a theory of nature" suggested that our views on good and bad should be based on those "theories of nature", therewith making me wonder whether we should also let the weaker die off without mercy, stage little fights among the males in order to ensure only the strongets breed, etc.

And what's to say that homosexual animals aren't bad for their species? I know some endangered primates who'd like to remove themselves from the endangered list.
Countless studies have established that homosexual behavior is beneficial for many species, including some of our closest genetic cousins (the pygmi chimpazees).

That's just stupid.

And saying that homosexuality is a disease isn't?

Countless studies have established that homosexual behavior is beneficial for many species, including some of our closest genetic cousins (the pygmi chimpazees).

Bonobos?
Now there's a species that really makes the most of their sex life :D

And what's to say that homosexual animals aren't bad for their species? I know some endangered primates who'd like to remove themselves from the endangered list.Let's take the arguement this way:

You said something about laws of nature saying that the meaning of life was to reproduce.

I counter saying that there's plenty of animals doing things other than that, so your laws might need to be revised, if not scrapped outright.

You respond "endangered animals!!!"

To which I will ask you: If a species (such as for instance... ah, I know, humans) has about 3 billion specimens on its planet, would you consider that species "endangered?"

That's just stupid.
Well, think about it:

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in violent crime.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in rape, child molestation, and other sexual offenses.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to commit murder.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in domestic abuse.

Given that modern technology makes heterosexual sex unnecessary, and given that heterosexuality is "linked" to increased propensity for criminal and violent behavior, maybe society would benefit from eliminating heterosexuality.

Or hey, maybe we get over ourselves and let people make their own fucking decisions about what to do with their genitals.

That's just stupid.

He who smelt it, dealt it. Yours was not a post of intellectual acuity, exactly. But no matter - there is a cure for ignorance. You just have to want to take it, but, alas, it seems you are happy with its proverbial bliss.

Are you suggesting we behave like animals, Kievan?
Your "many a theory of nature" suggested that our views on good and bad should be based on those "theories of nature", therewith making me wonder whether we should also let the weaker die off without mercy, stage little fights among the males in order to ensure only the strongets breed, etc.

Ahh, but we have different instincts to animals. We have morals. But we still adhere to some rules of nature, such as having sex with superior specimens in order to produce to healthy successor.

Let's take the arguement this way:

You said something about laws of nature saying that the meaning of life was to reproduce.

I counter saying that there's plenty of animals doing things other than that, so your laws might need to be revised, if not scrapped outright.

You respond "endangered animals!!!"

Of course, he also provides absolutely ZERO evidence that there is even ONE SINGLE ENDANGERED SPECIES that is endangered due to homosexuality.

-snip-
Yeah, that is indeed a "third way" :rolleyes: .
If anything, the world has too many people. Is your real concern that most of them are not white?

Given that modern technology makes heterosexual sex unnecessary, and given that heterosexuality is "linked" to increased propensity for criminal and violent behavior, maybe society would benefit from eliminating heterosexuality.

No, no we don't. Unless you have cloning labs in your basement. In which case I would like to see them.

Of course, he also provides absolutely ZERO evidence that there is even ONE SINGLE ENDANGERED SPECIES that is endangered due to homosexuality.He also hasn't supplied any evidence that any endangered species are aware that they are on endangered species lists, much less that endangered species lists exist... :D

No, no we don't. Unless you have cloning labs in your basement. In which case I would like to see them.Test tube babies require no sex.

Ahh, but we have different instincts to animals. We have morals. But we still adhere to some rules of nature, such as having sex with superior specimens in order to produce to healthy successor.

That's not moral, that's arrogant. And stupid. And extremely unrealistic.
If we all were looking for sex only with a "superior specimen", which of those superior beings would then stoop to have sex with an inferior being such as ourselves?
And I've yet to come across a moral that dictates reproduction.

Countless studies have established that homosexual behavior is beneficial for many species, including some of our closest genetic cousins (the pygmi chimpazees).

Pygmy chimpanzees? You mean bonobos? What's their conservation status again? Endangered? Geez, that must be working out well for them.

No, no we don't. Unless you have cloning labs in your basement. In which case I would like to see them.
"No, no we don't"? Um, to what are you replying? Cloning technology is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Ahh, but we have different instincts to animals. We have morals. But we still adhere to some rules of nature, such as having sex with superior specimens in order to produce to healthy successor.I don't know about yours, but my country abolished its eugenics programs...

Pygmy chimpanzees? You mean bonobos? What's their conservation status again? Endangered? Geez, that must be working out well for them.

From what I know about them, it's definitely lack of heterosexual intercourse that's endangering them... :rolleyes:

Yeah, that is indeed a "third way" :rolleyes: .
If anything, the world has too many people. Is your real concern that most of them are not white?

Not really. If they're weak, they'll die. In which case someone else will inhabit the north and become white. Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.

Not really. If they're weak, they'll die. In which case someone else will inhabit the north and become white. Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.Have any of the past ice ages provided evidence that there will be no more black people should another one occur?

From what I know about them, it's definitely lack of heterosexual intercourse that's endangering them... :rolleyes:
Yes... if only they would fuck a bit more..

Not really. If they're weak, they'll die. In which case someone else will inhabit the north and become white. Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.

Oh boy.... and I thought people would have at least a rudimentary understanding of evolution by now...

I don't know about yours, but my country abolished its eugenics programs...

Your loss. People don't understand that eugenics is like nuclear power; it's good if idiots like most people can't use it.

Pygmy chimpanzees? You mean bonobos? What's their conservation status again? Endangered? Geez, that must be working out well for them.
And why are they endangered, darling? Is it because they are homosexual? Ooops, no it's not! It's deforestation, the destruction of their habitat. In fact, the healthiest and most thriving bonobo colonies are ones where sex between female chimps is the most common form of sexual contact.

Let me make it super duper clear, sweetie pie:

If you are going to claim that homosexuality is relevant to the endangerment of animal species, you must provide at least ONE example of an animal species that is endangered due to homosexuality. ONE EXAMPLE.

Until you do so, I invite everybody else to respond to this ridiculous line of "argument" with the level of seriousness it deserves...none.

Have any of the past ice ages provided evidence that there will be no more black people should another one occur?

We're assuming a prolonged, world-wide ice age. Which would provide a white-making environment.

Your loss. People don't understand that eugenics is like nuclear power; it's good if idiots like most people can't use it.:rolleyes:

Your loss. People don't understand that eugenics is like nuclear power; it's good if idiots like most people can't use it.

*lol
Killing of people because you are afraid of extinction?
Oh, wait, only homosexuals and non-breeders, right?

We're assuming a prolonged, world-wide ice age. Which would provide a white-making environment.When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. ;)

OH GOD WHY ARE THERE SO MANY HOMOSEXUALS ON THIS FORUM IS THAT FREAKING NORMAL???

These homosexual threads are freaking me out... argh --->:fluffle:
I personally don't have anything against homosexuals BUT i do NOT think it is natural....argh its disgusting...

Not really. If they're weak, they'll die. In which case someone else will inhabit the north and become white. Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.
Ahhhh, and now we come to it.

So. A racist, homophobic, eugenicist. No wonder you're so obsessed with forcing people to reproduce heterosexually...legally-mandated breeding is pretty much you're only hope of procreating.

Ahh, but we have different instincts to animals.
Thank you. Which is why it is very silly indeed to argue with "rules of nature".
We have morals.
Some of us do.
But we still adhere to some rules of nature, such as having sex with superior specimens in order to produce to healthy successor.
So you pick your partners according to how, umm, 'superior' they are and/or their ability to reproduce 'superior' children, yes?

I, once again, pity your view on life.

People don't understand that eugenics is like nuclear power; it's good if idiots like most people can't use it.
Your similies are awful.
Which would provide a white-making environment.
Snow is white! Everyone, grab your skiis!

We're assuming a prolonged, world-wide ice age. Which would provide a white-making environment.

*lol
This is getting better by the minute.
And ice age is always world wide, there are no localised ice ages. Actually, we are still living in a warmer period of one. Which, incidentally has lasted over 400,000 years now....

Not really. If they're weak, they'll die. In which case someone else will inhabit the north and become white. Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.

I cant decide if youre a troll or simply in need of medication. In any case, your points make no sense, so I'm just gonna get to the root of it....what exactly is your problem with homosexuality? You have half heartedly stated that they "deserve rights" yet feel that they are an infectious threat to the world and should be cured. I'm not sure,that youre sure, what you really think about the whole thing. Are you just harboring the fear that you might accidentally brush up against a homosexual and "catch it". A phobia perhaps?

So you pick your partners according to how, umm, 'superior' they are and/or their ability to reproduce 'superior' children, yes?

Yes. And so do you. Along with everybody else on the planet. It's called "attractiveness."

OH GOD WHY ARE THERE SO MANY HOMOSEXUALS ON THIS FORUM IS THAT FREAKING NORMAL???

In a word: yes. I've got news for you, sweets...the gays are everywhere. You work with them, talk with them, see them every day. You may not know it, but you're probably friends with some gay people. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. I know that makes some of you little boys want to scream and pout, but all the temper tantrums in the world aren't going to change reality. You might as well just chill out.


These homosexual threads are freaking me out...

I'm confused...did a gay man hold a gun to your head and make you enter this thread? Did somebody put a knife to your throat and make you participate on this forum?


argh --->:fluffle:
I personally don't have anything against homosexuals BUT i do NOT think it is natural....argh its disgusting...
"I don't have anything against homosexuals, but I think they're disgusting." What a wonderful new form of "logic" you have! I guess thinking something is disgusting no longer counts as "having something against it." Fascinating!

It has been proven(though I can't find the sources) that homosexuality happens in nature too. A male will choose another male to be it's mate and also females will choose other females. So it IS natural. :D We humans just follow suit.
Homosexuality will not be the cause of the downfall of the humans race.
I beleive that love doesn't follow the gender. Love chooses whom ever it wants.

Yes. And so do you. Along with everybody else on the planet. It's called "attractiveness."
Attractiveness =/= reproductive fitness. God, PLEASE READ A BOOK.

I cant decide if youre a troll or simply in need of medication. In any case, your points make no sense, so I'm just gonna get to the root of it....what exactly is your problem with homosexuality? You have half heartedly stated that they "deserve rights" yet feel that they are an infectious threat to the world and should be cured. I'm not sure,that youre sure, what you really think about the whole thing. Are you just harboring the fear that you might accidentally brush up against a homosexual and "catch it". A phobia perhaps?

Uhh, it's a medical anomaly. Which means it can be fixed. Along with austism, cancer, AIDS and Down Syndrome.

Meh.By the original anology homosexuals should have become extinct ages ago.Listen people are strange creatures.It would seem that the only people that are concerned about whos screwing who are a little insecure with their own sexuality.'Oh those nasty gays are out to turn me gay.. Oh it must be a conspiricy'.:rolleyes:

Or the next ice age will come around and everybody will be white.
We're assuming a prolonged, world-wide ice age. Which would provide a white-making environment.
Is anyone else taking this as a reference to little snow-covered people?

People don't understand that eugenics is like nuclear power; it's good if idiots like most people can't use it.
Brains are like condoms, they are great but most idiots don't use them.

What's wrong with me finding Homesexual..errr "love" disgusting? Like i said i'm not homosexual and i dun consider it natural. But i have nothing against them cause i probably wouldn't even know they were homosexual...o yea Bottle are YOU homosexual? certainly seems like it

Attractiveness =/= reproductive fitness. God, PLEASE READ A BOOK.

No, but we assume it does. Because we're not psychic.

What's wrong with me finding Homesexual..errr "love" disgusting? Like i said i'm not homosexual and i dun consider it natural. But i have nothing against them cause i probably wouldn't even know they were homosexual...

Yep, you have "nothing against them," which is why you go on to "accuse" me of being homosexual (as though it is some kind of insult).

o yea Bottle are YOU homosexual? certainly seems like it
And you certainly seem to be overly fascinated with homosexuality, considering how disgusted you are with it. If homosexuality is so gross to you, why would you want to know whether or not I'm gay? Wouldn't you want to AVOID things that gross you out?

hah...just a few seconds ago every1 was posting like crazy...the posting suddenly died down...

Yes. And so do you. Along with everybody else on the planet. It's called "attractiveness."Welcome to the age of plastic surgery and hair dyes.
And besides, did you fall asleep during genetics in biology? Two similar phenotypes can have completely different genotypes. And then there's recessive genes. The only way your eugenics program would work is if you screw people with the right results in the gene tests, no matter what they look like.
I remember the big Irish "eugenics program" on potatos. It ended in the potato famine.

Mostly, it's people who have full support for gay rights on one side, and people who think gays are either abominations or choosing it on the other side. But I've never seen anybody who shares my view, and I want to see what you think of it.

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.

I got nothing against homosexuals having rights. I haven't read all the rights, so I'm not sure if all of them apply to them, but, sure, they can have rights. But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.

*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*
Okay....."NAZI!"

Since you raised the spectre of Nazism, in your own thread, lets look at your statement:

"But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce"
Would the world have been better off without a little Adolf running around? Perhaps instead of looking for a "cure for homosexuality" you might want to fix the gene pool that "causes" the creation of little Hitlers? :rolleyes:

No, but we assume it does. Because we're not psychic.
Just because YOU make stupid assumptions doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Believe it or not, there are many people who don't WANT to reproduce, and a good number of them are heterosexual. Many people are attracted to others for reasons that have nothing to do with reproductive fitness, silly little things like personality, intellect, mutual interests...you know, all that boring stuff that grown ups like.

No, but we assume it does. Because we're not psychic.


What? :confused:

Yes. And so do you. Along with everybody else on the planet. It's called "attractiveness."
As Bottle had the niceness of pointing out already, attrcativeness doesn't equal the quality of ones genes or whatever the hell you are alluding to. I agree that that might have been that way long ago in the day of the caveman, but, you know..most of us moved on since then.

The lady I'm with has a deplorable eyesight, some severe food allergies and some sorta back problems. Superior is probably different, but that's one hell of an attractive woman, if I may say that.

haha it was just my computer...i thought every1 stopped posting...

I really do find homosexual sex disgusting and i really cant help it. I dun hate them though...and I really didn't think there were so many homosexuals, its really scary! omg maybe my school's just full of bisexuals...

What's wrong with me finding Homesexual..errr "love" disgusting?That you're pointing it out in every post you're making...

haha it was just my computer...i thought every1 stopped posting...

I really do find homosexual sex disgusting and i really cant help it. I dun hate them though...and I really didn't think there were so many homosexuals, its really scary! omg maybe my school's just full of bisexuals...

Well, look the other way when you see them snogging and stay away from gay porn. It's not as if you couldn't avoid references to gay sex, it's more the other way around.

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?

No, but we assume it does. Because we're not psychic.
No, you assume it does. We don't. Because we aren't fixed on life's purpose being to reproduce to the most 'superior' effect, you know.

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?Why do animals do it, if it isn't?

WOAH hey hey waht do u mean by "we" . You mean u homosexuals?

As Bottle had the niceness of pointing out already, attrcativeness doesn't equal the quality of ones genes or whatever the hell you are alluding to. I agree that that might have been that way long ago in the day of the caveman, but, you know..most of us moved on since then.

The lady I'm with has a deplorable eyesight, some severe food allergies and some sorta back problems. Superior is probably different, but that's one hell of an attractive woman, if I may say that.
Indeed, research is now suggesting that the qualities an average American rates as "very attractive" are sometimes actually indicators of a "less reproductively fit" individual. For instance, Americans tend to rate extreme thinness as an attractive quality in a woman, but women who genetically tend toward extreme thinness are also more likely to have difficulties conceiving and bearing children (due not only to body fat ratio stuff, but also to certain hormonal factors that happen to correlate with thinness in many cases).

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?

Why do we have brains, when people seem to be so unwilling to use them?

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?
So that those who want to may reproduce? I know it's really generous of lesbians like me to bear with crap like menstruation in order for your poor girlfriend to be able to bear your superior children, but that's the way we are. You're welcome.

Why do we have brains, when people seem to be so unwilling to use them?To cool the blood flowing through our bodies. ;)

What do you mean by that hm?
Homosexuals having sex with ppl of the same gender DO NOT conceive children...and that is the point of reproductive organs

Why do we have brains, when people seem to be so unwilling to use them?
ZING!! Perhaps Dr. Fass, you could find a cure for the brain dead in our society?

What do you mean by that hm?
Homosexuals having sex with ppl of the same gender DO NOT conceive children...and that is the point of reproductive organsNot really. That's more of a side effect. Why do you think it feels so good? Evolution had to trick animals into wanting to reproduce somehow...

WOAH hey hey waht do u mean by "we" . You mean u homosexuals?
In case you were referring to me, please make use of the quote function.

And no, I didn't mean us homosexuals. I meant us people using their brains and hearts for other things than coordinating our vital functions as well.

My friend, after the massive advance we've had in the last century, if we survive another millenia we'll be able to cure death.
That's... an extremely frightening thought. *shivers* The ramifications of such a thing is beyond comprehension.
I hope we someday can cure heterosexuality. We've made great strides, but still there are pockets of resistance that need to be crushed.
You're never gonna get me alive! Not you nor your gay Mafia! Unless I watch Brokeback Mountain again - it's a great movie, but it's supposed to turn you gay(-er), just like listening to Barbra Streisand or the Village People, or joining the army or navy. Not the air force, though, that's a Real Mans World - just watch 'Top Gun', and you'll feel all tingly with heterosexuality again *shivers more*

Anyhoo, my message is: Viva la Revolución. I mean la resistance! :fluffle:

What do you mean by that hm?
Homosexuals having sex with ppl of the same gender DO NOT conceive children...and that is the point of reproductive organs
Go have a wank.

haha yea but the main point is still reproduction

lol

what's a wank?

haha yea but the main point is still reproduction
Nah. The main point is to feel good. Nature tricked us.

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?
Um, I think you are trying to ask, "If humans have the ability to use their genitalia to sexually reproduce, then how can homosexuality be natural?"

Well, humans have the ability to use our fingers to grasp tools, but we also have the ability to use our hands to play the piano. Humans can use our legs to walk around, or we can use them to dance the Cha-cha. Humans can use our elbows to allow our arms to flex, or we can use our elbows to break the nose of the opposing team's wingman.

Human body parts can be used for multiple functions. Any man should be aware of this, given that you can pee out of the same organ that you can use to impregnate somebody. If your penis can be used for urination as well as sex, why should it seem odd to you that some people use their anuses for defecation as well as sex?

Indeed, there is only ONE human body part that is designed exclusively for sex, and which serves NO PURPOSE other than sex: the clitoris. And the clitoris doesn't even serve reproduction directly, it serves sexual PLEASURE.

All other sexual parts (penis, testes, ovaries, vagina, uterus) have functions beyond sexual reproduction. Our testes and ovaries not only release sperm and eggs, they also help regulate the hormonal balances in our bodies. Our genitals actually spend more time helping out our digestive tracts than they do helping out our reproductive systems.

It makes me sad to think there are people who are so uncreative that they think the only purpose for their genitals can be reproduction. Not only are those people missing out on some of the best sex, but they also must really really have to pee by now.

What do you mean by that hm?
Homosexuals having sex with ppl of the same gender DO NOT conceive children...and that is the point of reproductive organs
You aren't paying attention. Some homosexuals actually do reproduce and many of them adopt children. The pro life crowd should be happy?

haha yea but the main point is still reproduction

There's one thing you need to know about nature : It doesn't have a point. Ever.
It's random. Reproduction only works as a side effect of sex (it's being done because it feels good)

haha yea but the main point is still reproduction
Maybe for you.

The "main point" of your hands might be to open a beer or hold a hammer, while the "main point" of mine might be to hold a pen or play an instrument. Just because you are unimaginative doesn't mean the rest of us are :).

What do you mean by that hm?
Homosexuals having sex with ppl of the same gender DO NOT conceive children...and that is the point of reproductive organs
Really? The point of sex organs is always reproduction? Guess you're yet another guy who's never heard of the clitoris, then...

haha okay...but come on, why do we have reproductive organs if homosexuality was natural?
Why do sterile people have reproductive organs? Why do idiots have reproductive organs? Why do bad people who should never be around any child have reproductive organs? It's because we are all human. Barring some really bad birth defect everyone is born with reproductive organs. It isn't going to change because some people think they are un-needed.
Homosexuality isn't a physical defect. It is a mental/emotional trait. Just like my preference for the color blue, or guys with full lips and long legs(I'm a girl by the way). I didn't choose the color blue. I'm just naturally drawn to it.
My personal belief is that homosexuality is the physical, emotional, sexual attration to the same sex. It is NOT a choice. It is not a disease or mutation.
That really has nothing to do with reproduction. Many homosexuals want to reproduce just as much as heterosexuals.
:edit: And many heterosexuals and homosexuals don't wish to reproduce. :end edit:

You aren't paying attention. Some homosexuals actually do reproduce and many of them adopt children. The pro life crowd should be happy?

+1

You aren't paying attention. Some homosexuals actually do reproduce and many of them adopt children. The pro life crowd should be happy?

yea but they reproduce with teh opposite sex no? or did i miss something? a guy getting pregnant? omg

Many homosexuals want to reproduce just as much as heterosexuals.
And many heterosexuals DON'T WANT TO REPRODUCE.

yea but they reproduce with teh opposite sex no? or did i miss something? a guy getting pregnant? omg

They reproduce with the other sex, but they don't have sex with it.
You're argument that sex and reproduction are inseperable has just completely dissolved...

yea but they reproduce with teh opposite sex no? or did i miss something? a guy getting pregnant? omg

actually they insert sperm into the other guy's ass and they get pregnant
rofl
:D

We may be having a population crisis in the future so the more gay people the better.

actually they insert sperm into the other guy's ass and they get pregnant
rofl
:D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

actually they insert sperm into the other guy's ass and they get pregnant
rofl
:D
Huh huh huh, no, they kiss a guy on the LIPS, and that makes the other guy turn into a GIRL! Then they stick sperm into her belly button and it goes in and makes a baby!

EEEEW, GIRLS HAVE COOTIES!!!

Okay, seriously though, are you boys done? Or do we need to call the playground monitor over to give you a time out?

I don't think the Earth's population should be held in check by increasing the number of homosexuals...they should have birth control laws...especially in undeveloped countries...and deforestation should stop...its horrible really

Reproduction only works as a side effect of sex (it's being done because it feels good)
And it doesn't even work very well. If reproduction is the point of sex, then how come sex only leads to reproduction very very rarely? Even if you look at times or places when humans did not have any contraception, sex still only leads to reproduction about 1/20 times under the very most ideal of circumstances.

Huh huh huh, no, they kiss a guy on the LIPS, and that makes the other guy turn into a GIRL! Then they stick sperm into her belly button and it goes in and makes a baby!

EEEEW, GIRLS HAVE COOTIES!!!

Okay, seriously though, are you boys done? Or do we need to call the playground monitor over to give you a time out?

errr i didnt get ur point...and this thread is getting....interesting....

Huh huh huh, no, they kiss a guy on the LIPS, and that makes the other guy turn into a GIRL! Then they stick sperm into her belly button and it goes in and makes a baby!

EEEEW, GIRLS HAVE COOTIES!!!

Okay, seriously though, are you boys done? Or do we need to call the playground monitor over to give you a time out?

lol, :sniper: ur dead

jkjk

actually they insert sperm into the other guy's ass and they get pregnant
rofl
:D

I'm telling your mom you said "Ass"

I'm telling your mom you said "Ass"

lol, like she gives a shit about it

And it doesn't even work very well. If reproduction is the point of sex, then how come sex only leads to reproduction very very rarely? Even if you look at times or places when humans did not have any contraception, sex still only leads to reproduction about 1/20 times under the very most ideal of circumstances.

It's still the main drive behind sex though. Sex doesn't always result in reproduction but without a sexual drive, we'd be extinct by now. Sex is good without reproduction though haha

I'm telling your mom you said "Ass"
Oooh, I'm telling YOUR mom that YOU said "ass"

Oh no, I SAID IT TOO!!!!

yea but they reproduce with teh opposite sex no? or did i miss something? a guy getting pregnant? omg
I guess you need to upgrade your reproductive knowledge? In today's society, a woman doesn't have to have sex with a member of the opposite sex to get pregnant. You must be very young or you would have known that?

I guess you need to upgrade your reproductive knowledge? In today's society, a woman doesn't have to have sex with a member of the opposite sex to get pregnant. You must be very young or you would have known that?

oh? dildos make u pregnant? *SHOCK*

It's still the main drive behind sex though.

Not in humans. Evidence suggests that reproduction is also not the main drive behind sex in several other species, including penguins, dolphins, certain chimp species, numerous song birds, and even possibly giraffes (though nobody really understands giraffes).


Sex doesn't always result in reproduction but without a sexual drive, we'd be extinct by now.

Without reproduction we would all be extinct. Reproduction does not require sex drive, and sex drive does not require reproduction.

Oooh, I'm telling YOUR mom that YOU said "ass"

Oh no, I SAID IT TOO!!!!


Well now we r fucked. OMG....I said fuck! :sniper:


sigh. that was fun.

oh? dildos make u pregnant? *SHOCK*
Pregnant? What are you talking about? The stork brings babies, silly!

Well now we r fucked. OMG....I said fuck! :sniper:


sigh. that was fun.

haha i agree

I came to this thread after reading the title, hoping for something that was actually new and interesting to do with the homosexuality debate. Instead all I found was that it was another foolish thread created by someone who's views I find repugnant.
From disturbing suggestions that homosexuals need to be "cured", to a totally idiotic comment that there may in a 1000 years be a cure for death, to truly disgusting support for eugenics, I find the ideas of Kievan-Prussia to be absurd.
Happily, I know that very few people think like him, so it doesn't really matter.:)

Pregnant? What are you talking about? The stork brings babies, silly!
Maybe the teacher will ring the bell soon and the toddlers can go back to class?

Pygmy chimpanzees? You mean bonobos? What's their conservation status again? Endangered? Geez, that must be working out well for them.


Can you guess why bonobo's are endangered?

There are over 6 billion people around today - the more affluent people there are , the greater the strain on the world's resources. Demands for tropical hardwoods from the growing "western" populations are fueling the logging industry in Africa, while their growing populations use the logging roads for further access to game a.k.a. bushmeat such as gorillas, bonobos, duikers, heck anything they can get their hands on. But why don't they farm the deforested lands? There's a lot of problems with this, one of the more salient being that with dumping of excess food produce from european markets and undercutting local profits it isn't profitable to farm, however bushmeat is a cheaper billion dollar industry.

So what are bonobos dying out from?

overexploitation from growing African populations

AND (FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY)

Habitat loss and fragmentation from the logging of rainforests by increasing western demand, owing to increasing western populations....


So by your own standards it seems that "using" the ability to reproduce is in fact a bad thing, and the bonobo's inevitable extinction* is a direct result of too much human reproduction and has nothing to do with homo/ actually make that bisexuality, incest and pederasty in bonobos which are all expressions of their wonderful social structure (you could say that instead of having a conversation bonobo's have sex - fascinating creatures, but doomed to extinction by our greed - we won't wise-up in time to save them, the tiger, the panda or a whole host of other flagship species - but i digress)

Homosexuality is natural - lets put that out there. I'm a qualified zoologist folks so direct any idiot who disagrees over here. However, so is infanticide, so using natural law to dictate your own moral compass is useless.

Humans are the only ones who put moral goods and bads on things - well get this - Overpopulation will mean that most of the world's resources of things like oil, platinum, aluminium, etc are used up in a hundred years, and that 50% of all species (we've only properly named around 30%) animal, plant fungi... will be extinct. That's 100's of million's of years of evolution and biological information gone forever. And to put that in context, think - we get brocolli, brussel sprouts, kale, cabbage and cauliflower all from varieties of the same SPECIES of plant - and those are only its food uses!!! Think of all the things we've lost already!

Now who would try and argue that adding to the human population is a "good" thing

Hurray for homosexuals (who choose not to have children) would that we all were as noble as them!



*...in the wild, but in fairness ex-situ conservation is hardly worth the paper it's written on

oh? dildos make u pregnant? *SHOCK*

lol plz explain
nvm ur biology is worse than mine haha

heh how old do u think we are? 2?? How old are u guys anyways? young gays or oldie gays ..or toddler gays?

btw that'll news for Mr. Valjakka
rofl

neway
getting back to the topic

how do dildos impregnate a woman???

that would be an interesting field to study
if such a field exists....

These two have got to be some regular NSers amusing themselves with us. If I find out who...there will be much suffering.

For White Lotus Order and Nunps:

The way women get pregnant without sex is called ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. You may have heard of "Test Tube Babies."

Now, either you guys are trolls, really young... or really ignorant/dumb.

To the original author: It doesn't matter who homosexuals are attracted to. Fact is, many of them are perfectly willing to reproduce, and they do so.

And thus, your "humans are going to go instinct because of teh gays!" scenario is diffused. Hooray.

Mostly, it's people who have full support for gay rights on one side, and people who think gays are either abominations or choosing it on the other side. But I've never seen anybody who shares my view, and I want to see what you think of it.

I believe that homosexuality itself is a negative thing. Not homosexuals, it's not their fault, they were born that way. But many a theory of nature says that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and something within homosexuals makes them unwilling to do so, thus, they are inherently different from heterosexuals.

I got nothing against homosexuals having rights. I haven't read all the rights, so I'm not sure if all of them apply to them, but, sure, they can have rights. But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.

*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*

maybe if we just exported them to a deserted island where they could start they're own country and government. Then we trade embargo them and make them poorer then western europe!

These two have got to be some regular NSers amusing themselves with us. If I find out who...there will be much suffering.

im just curious, and wat is NSers

For White Lotus Order and Nunps:

The way women get pregnant without sex is called ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION. You may have heard of "Test Tube Babies."

Now, either you guys are trolls, really young... or really ignorant/dumb.

To the original author: It doesn't matter who homosexuals are attracted to. Fact is, many of them are perfectly willing to reproduce, and they do so.

And thus, your "humans are going to go instinct because of teh gays!" scenario is diffused. Hooray.

lol thx for the explanation

If I find out who...there will be much suffering.

You stated that quite dramatically. Very nice.

neway
getting back to the topic

how do dildos impregnate a woman???

that would be an interesting field to study
if such a field exists....

hah I said that cause he (forgot who) said lesbians can have sex and get pregnant...how please? Sorry my biology sucks in the homosexual area...although im pretty good with enviromental stuff

oh god my computer is slow nvm this post

hah I said that cause he (forgot who) said lesbians can have sex and get pregnant...how please? Sorry my biology sucks in the homosexual area...although im pretty good with enviromental stuff

lol your biology sucks all around

im just curious, and wat is NSers

and now I'm certain of it.

Ah, many a theory of nature says so, doesn't it? Why do animals have homosexual tendencies then, if it's so natural to only have sex to reproduce and only like members of the opposite sex?


Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION

does that include sex? no right?

u still haven't answered the f#@!ing question

Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

Obviously, you know nothing of Bonobos. One of the most oversexed species on the planet.

Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

haha yea... Ive seen bonobos doing that stuff though (i think, cant remember). Were males though not females...

Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

Hi I've a BSc in zoology and an MSc in conservation science and yes I can state categorically that animals have all kinds of sexual expression including (but not limited to) homosexuality.

Read Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" for a more exhaustive account

Obviously, you know nothing of Bonobos. One of the most oversexed species on the planet.

yea they have sex all the time, not just for reproduction...but still, that doesn't make homosexuality natural (in my point of view)

Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

Directs you to Thermidore (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10486271&postcount=134) as per request:
Homosexuality is natural - lets put that out there. I'm a qualified zoologist folks so direct any idiot who disagrees over here.

Hi I've a BSc in zoology and an MSc in conservation science and yes I can state categorically that animals have all kinds of sexual expression including (but not limited to) homosexuality.

Read Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" for a more exhaustive account

gd idea, might help in my bio report

Directs you to Thermidore (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10486271&postcount=134) as per request:

haha that's funny hahahaha anyways why dun u show me how Thermidore? u might change my view! go for it!

On the superinformation highway, it is bound to happen?

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/185000/185271ChJG_w.jpg

On the superinformation highway, it is bound to happen?

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/185000/185271ChJG_w.jpg

err the link didnt work

*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*
*cries 'GODWIN!'*

To an animal fucking is fucking. It dosen't matter whether its with a male, a female, another animal, a chew toy or your leg. It dosen't have any sense of personality or intimacy, it just fucks. So I see how its possible for it be natural in people but I really don't see how its possible for homosexuality to be natural in animals.

Can you prove animals have homosexual tendencies? I have heard that crap before. My friend, I grew up on a farm and have observed to male goats "going at it" briefly. Before you say, "Ah ha!" let me stress these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do. A little older, and somehow, the "natural born" instinct for queerism vanished. Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:

You should raise penguins... They're cute :)

They're in love. They're gay. They're penguins... And they're not alone.
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

Gay penguins found in Japanese aquariums

Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said.

A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said.

Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying.

It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said.

Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said.

Ueda was not available for comment on the report.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/27/content_403550.htm

You should raise penguins... They're cute :)


http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/27/content_403550.htm

u certainly like penguins

To an animal fucking is fucking. It dosen't matter whether its with a male, a female, another animal, a chew toy or your leg. It dosen't have any sense of personality or intimacy, it just fucks. So I see how its possible for it be natural in people but I really don't see how its possible for homosexuality to be natural in animals.


Well it is natural in animals - unless you want to go against literally tens of thousands of documented reported of it going on in the field (so to speak)

If you're upset with that I'd better not tell you about the cases of transvestitism in seabirds, homosexual necrophiliac rape in ducks, transexualism in pigs, hermaphroditism in amphibians, male parenting in seahorses....... the list goes on

homosexual necrophiliac rape in ducks? lol

u certainly like penguins
Why yes, I do. ;)

Mmmm... Penguins :fluffle:
Especially the classic Penguin al'Orange! Mmmm!

Why yes, I do. ;)

Mmmm... Penguins :fluffle:
Especially the classic Penguin al'Orange! Mmmm!

argh :gundge:

Great gods, I can feel my IQ has dropped at least 5 points just from reading the latter pages of this thread. I wanted to look away, but it's morbidly fascinating to see the complete ignorance and idiocy being spewed forth by certain posters.

What are these two? Puppets? Trolls? Idiots? Children? Some combination thereof?

AIDs is the solution, not a problem.

[..]these goats were a whopping six months old!! They had no idea what thier purpose was, they just knew what they were able to do.
So goats know what their purpose is later?
Also having spent the larger part of my life next to a farm, let me assure I've seen homosexual behavior in grwon animals as well. Plenty.
Also...I never, not once, witnessed two females of any species other than human, having sexual relations. Ain't happening!:eek:
Cows do it regularly. Female ones, yes.

Great gods, I can feel my IQ has dropped at least 5 points just from reading the latter pages of this thread. I wanted to look away, but it's morbidly fascinating to see the complete ignorance and idiocy being spewed forth by certain posters.

What are these two? Puppets? Trolls? Idiots? Children? Some combination thereof?

these two?

Great gods, I can feel my IQ has dropped at least 5 points just from reading the latter pages of this thread. I wanted to look away, but it's morbidly fascinating to see the complete ignorance and idiocy being spewed forth by certain posters.

What are these two? Puppets? Trolls? Idiots? Children? Some combination thereof?

lol

AIDs is the solution, not a problem.
I see you have not yet been personally confronted with AIDS. Lucky you.

AIDS is a solution? my arse

I see you have not yet been personally confronted with AIDS. Lucky you.
+1

Great gods, I can feel my IQ has dropped at least 5 points just from reading the latter pages of this thread. I wanted to look away, but it's morbidly fascinating to see the complete ignorance and idiocy being spewed forth by certain posters.

What are these two? Puppets? Trolls? Idiots? Children? Some combination thereof?


probably,yes,yes,yes and most definitely

these two?

Yes, indeed. Have you read the "Memoirs of a Generalite" thread, per chance?

by these two u mean me and numps?

AIDs is the solution, not a problem.
Assumptions in this post: a) There is a problem that needs solving, and b) AIDS affects and is only transmitted by homosexuals.
Both are wrong. I see no problem, and therefore there is no need for a solution; and AIDS can be contracted perfectly easily by heterosexuals...

AIDS is a solution? my arse
I think they're deluded enough to think that AIDS is a disease known only among homosexuals, a just punishment for their deviant lifestyle, and therefore a great tool to eradicate the homosexual community.
Not a new thought, but idiocy dies last.

Assumptions in this post: a) There is a problem that needs solving, and b) AIDS affects and is only transmitted by homosexuals.
Both are wrong. I see no problem, and therefore there is no need for a solution; and AIDS can be contracted perfectly easily by heterosexuals...

wtf is ur point? we all know that heterosexuals can transmit AIDS too. And it needs to be cured. Diseases like that arent the solution to keeping populations in check.

I think they're deluded enough to think that AIDS is a disease known only among homosexuals, a just punishment for their deviant lifestyle, and therefore a great tool to eradicate the homosexual community.
Not a new thought, but idiocy dies last.

Maybe they are Phelps followers....or his children.

by these two u mean me and numps?

I'll leave that little mystery for you to unravel on your own.

Originally Posted by SoWiBi
I think they're deluded enough to think that AIDS is a disease known only among homosexuals, a just punishment for their deviant lifestyle, and therefore a great tool to eradicate the homosexual community.
Not a new thought, but idiocy dies last.

haha i missed that post. I'm not religious and i do not believe that homosexuals are the only ones taht can transmit AIDS.

Why yes, I do. ;)

Mmmm... Penguins :fluffle:
Especially the classic Penguin al'Orange! Mmmm!
Would you look at that now... I think the last time you fluffled something so fervently, it was - cherries! :p

Let me clarify that I have witnessed it once or twice in grown animals, but only when there was a bunch of males cooped together with little or no females, especially among chickens. The only time I saw females acting unnatural was a hen that humped a rooster. Not exactly homosexual, but very confused nonetheless. Y'all have still yet to prove homosexuality is natural among animals or humans.

You are forgetting humans minds are much more advanced than animals'. We can "invent" new ways to do things that were never meant to happen. Sin was never meant to exist in this world. But alas, the Great Deciever fixed that problem in the Garden of Eden, using our very first ancestors. And before you Great and Mighty Evolutionist Know-It-All's crucify me, I offer you a challenge (which is also open to the homo's). When you can find documents and manuscripts written by those who lived in times where there were animals in transitionary stages, or research that proves homosexuality is a biological makeup, I might listen to you.

I find it rather disturbing to know millions of people on this globe actually believe in the theory of evolution (which in reality, is no more than a hypothesis). I think it rather conveinient for you to say dinos existed before humans...billions of years ago. It's because you have no answers!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! The Bible speaks in Isaiah 30:6 of the "young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent,". Job speaks of leviathan and behemoth, the former who breathed fire and who's armor was inpenetrable, and the latter who could drink up a river and who's tail was like a great cedar of Lebanon. Of course, I don't expect you to believe the Bible, but it WAS written by people who were there, and that is more than anything you have!!!:mp5:

wtf is ur point? we all know that heterosexuals can transmit AIDS too. And it needs to be cured. Diseases like that arent the solution to keeping populations in check.
I think Eritrita referred to the assumptions in that first post that brought up AIDS.
haha i missed that post. I'm not religious and i do not believe that homosexuals are the only ones taht can transmit AIDS.
I wasn't referring to you directly either, but to that Kyle post as well. Basically clearing up that one-liner a little as your post looked like it expressed not understanding where Kyle came from. Sorry if you felt addressed.

P.S. Please do try to use the quote function. In order to quote a post, you click that quote button in the lower right-hand corner on it.

wtf is ur point? we all know that heterosexuals can transmit AIDS too. And it needs to be cured. Diseases like that arent the solution to keeping populations in check.
SoWiBi got it exactly. Thank you, SoWiBi.

Southern Sovereignty, the fact is, before humans nothing could write or wrote.... it took a long time for us to discover writing! And there are documents talking of dragons in the Medieval ages, and tales including them, so will you tell me they existed then as well?

- snip evolution is a bunch of crap -
Oh my. And here I so enjoyed the quiet on this front for the last week or so.

Let me clarify that I have witnessed it once or twice in grown animals, but only when there was a bunch of males cooped together with little or no females, especially among chickens. The only time I saw females acting unnatural was a hen that humped a rooster. Not exactly homosexual, but very confused nonetheless. Y'all have still yet to prove homosexuality is natural among animals or humans.

You are forgetting humans minds are much more advanced than animals'. We can "invent" new ways to do things that were never meant to happen. Sin was never meant to exist in this world. But alas, the Great Deciever fixed that problem in the Garden of Eden, using our very first ancestors. And before you Great and Mighty Evolutionist Know-It-All's crucify me, I offer you a challenge (which is also open to the homo's). When you can find documents and manuscripts written by those who lived in times where there were animals in transitionary stages, or research that proves homosexuality is a biological makeup, I might listen to you.

I find it rather disturbing to know millions of people on this globe actually believe in the theory of evolution (which in reality, is no more than a hypothesis). I think it rather conveinient for you to say dinos existed before humans...billions of years ago. It's because you have no answers!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! The Bible speaks in Isaiah 30:6 of the "young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent,". Job speaks of leviathan and behemoth, the former who breathed fire and who's armor was inpenetrable, and the latter who could drink up a river and who's tail was like a great cedar of Lebanon. Of course, I don't expect you to believe the Bible, but it WAS written by people who were there, and that is more than anything you have!!!:mp5:

haha i want proof too! I believe in evolution and I think the bible is flawed in quiet a few areas. Oh well nvm thats just my point of view. And evolution...it needs a purpose...at least i want it to have one..haha

argh :gundge:
Eloquently put, sir. Well done. :p

Eloquently put, sir. Well done. :p

haha thx

yea they have sex all the time, not just for reproduction...but still, that doesn't make homosexuality natural (in my point of view)

How is it not natural? They're animals, in the wild, and males are fucking males, males are fucking females, and females are fucking females. All in the wild. All happening without intervention.

Eloquently put, sir. Well done. :p
Actually, I think "haha argh :gundge: nvm" would have said it even better. :p

How is it not natural? They're animals, in the wild, and males are fucking males, males are fucking females, and females are fucking females. All in the wild. All happening without intervention.

females fucking females in the wild? how?

Would you look at that now... I think the last time you fluffled something so fervently, it was - cherries! :p

Mmmm... Cherries! :fluffle: :fluffle:

Don't worry, cherries are still on top, but penguins are not that far down on the list.
But just imagine, cherry-flavoured penguins! w00t! :D

Oh my. And here I so enjoyed the quiet on this front for the last week or so.

It couldn't last. You know that.

Edit: Oh, hey, 1000 posts! I'm a Pimp! To celebrate, witness Revasser's first ever use of the sniper smiley on this forum. Behold!

:sniper:

Actually, I think "haha argh :gundge: nvm" would have said it even better. :p

heh

Mmmm... Cherries! :fluffle: :fluffle:

Don't worry, cherries are still on top, but penguins are not that far down on the list.
But just imagine, cherry-flavoured penguins! w00t! :D
Hee. You should talk to Cheese Penguins, he might have just the recipe for that. :p


It couldn't last. You know that.
Well, I guess I did. *dejected sigh*

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in violent crime.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in rape, child molestation, and other sexual offenses.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to commit murder.

Heterosexuals are disproportionately likely to engage in domestic abuse.
Can you provide some sources to your claims about heterosexuals being disproportionately more likely to engage in violent crime, child molestation etc? Especially, the child molestation one. That would be a really nice fact to have when homophobic conservatives claim that the exact opposite is true.

females fucking females in the wild? how?

Genital rubbing I believe.

maybe he says so because heterosexuals are the majority?:confused:

maybe he says so because heterosexuals are the majority?:confused:
The majority (can't, annoyingly, find figures) of child abuse, is in fact practiced by an older father on a female child. Therefore we may conclude it is heterosexuals perpetrating it, right?

Homosexuality isnt a disease and therefore cannot be "cured".

Anencephaly isn't a "disease" either. It can't be "cured", but its causes can be identified and it can be prevented. All genetic and/or developmental defects will eventually be identifiec and prevented.

In particular, the genetic and/or developmental defects that result in sexual deviants will be identified, and soon thereafter corrected. No sane parent wants to produce a genetic dead-end. Sexual deviance will be removed from the human genome, and sexual deviants will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :)

BTW: the occurrence of same-sex behavior among animals just goes to show that whatever genetic errors contribute to it arose pretty far back in time.

I find it rather disturbing to know millions of people on this globe actually believe in the theory of evolution (which in reality, is no more than a hypothesis). I think it rather conveinient for you to say dinos existed before humans...billions of years ago. It's because you have no answers!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! The Bible speaks in Isaiah 30:6 of the "young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent,". Job speaks of leviathan and behemoth, the former who breathed fire and who's armor was inpenetrable, and the latter who could drink up a river and who's tail was like a great cedar of Lebanon. Of course, I don't expect you to believe the Bible, but it WAS written by people who were there, and that is more than anything you have!!!:mp5:

Charles Darwin theorised the theory of evolution based upon observational evidence of the genetics of plants. When his theory was investigated, it was found to explain a number of things in the world scientifically, and an extention of what could be clearly seen to be going on with the breeding of animals and the like made perfect sence. The bible was writted thousands of years ago, by a number of different authors, all of whom could have been symbolic in their writing, or simply writing some of the world's first fiction. It didn't help that a lot of it was passed down in a huge version of chinese whispers, and translated several times. I prefer to trust a viable theory the proof of which is self-evident (although I am open to anything that would suggest that it is wrong), rather than some old book, the equivelent of which is owned by almost every religion.

The majority (can't, annoyingly, find figures) of child abuse, is in fact practiced by an older father on a female child. Therefore we may conclude it is heterosexuals perpetrating it, right?

haha yea

<Snip>
Of course, I don't expect you to believe the Bible, but it WAS written by people who were there, and that is more than anything you have!!!
Written by people who were there, huh?
Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Man enters at day six... So who were there at day one?

Hee. You should talk to Cheese Penguins, he might have just the recipe for that. :p That's a good idea. I'm beginning to tire of that old Penguine Pie:
2 -3 lbs Ground Penguin
1 med Onion
2 stalks Celery
1/2 Green Pepper (1 whole pepper if small.
5 cups Mashed Potatoes
1 can 12 oz Tomato Paste
12 oz Cheddar/ or American Cheese
1 tsp Garlic
1 tsp Onion Powder
1-1/2 tsp Oregano
Salt and Pepper to taste
1/4 cup water

Mmm... Top with fresh cherries, and it's perfect! :D

Anencephaly isn't a "disease" either. It can't be "cured", but its causes can be identified and it can be prevented. All genetic and/or developmental defects will eventually be identifiec and prevented.

In particular, the genetic and/or developmental defects that result in sexual deviants will be identified, and soon thereafter corrected. No sane parent wants to produce a genetic dead-end. Sexual deviance will be removed from the human genome, and sexual deviants will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :)

BTW: the occurrence of same-sex behavior among animals just goes to show that whatever genetic errors contribute to it arose pretty far back in time.
Actually, I expect that they won't. Many parents don't care about their child's sexuality, or more precisely, don't mind about it. That, and the non-sexual methods of reproduction, make me think that homosexuality will not be eradicated through parents wanting "straight" children. Though hopefully we can get rid of gay culture... and incorporateit into normal culture instead.

I didn't read all 13 or more pages of replies, but I do have a response to the initial statement.

Homosexuality isn't some disease that can be cure, but if you must view it as such, then its a disease that must be cured by changing society and pretty much outlawing it, which will do no good. Basically, it's just personal preference. Some guys like thin girls, others like heavier ones. Some girls like guys with big, bulging muscles, others want whimpy guys. So is it any surprise some girls like other girls or guys like other guys? If they can be happy, then let them be. Isn't that the purpose of life, to find happiness?

Also, homosexuals don't choose not to reproduce. Some of them go out and seek ways of having children, whether it be adoption or surrogate mothers/fathers. That negates your reproduction argument.

No sane parent wants to produce a genetic dead-end. Sexual deviance will be removed from the human genome, and sexual deviants will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :)
Wow, this just gets worse and worse. And I love how you put that smiley right behind one of the more disgusting statements ever made on NS General. Very classy.

FYI, I would *never* abort a child because he/she was somehow proven to be homosexual. What makes you even think people would do that?? (People other than your ilk, that is).

Fuck, once more I can't believe I'm even replying to this.

ETA: Oh, I totally forgot: isn't it people like you who are also the most rabid so-called "right to life"rs? Contradiction much?

Anencephaly isn't a "disease" either. It can't be "cured", but its causes can be identified and it can be prevented. All genetic and/or developmental defects will eventually be identifiec and prevented.

More Eugenics... Thats one step away from the designer baby idea...

:mp5: personally as i am a Fascist bastard i do have to say cull the lot. it is un-natural, unethical and downright immoral.

That's a good idea. I'm beginning to tire of that old Penguine Pie:

Mmm... Top with fresh cherries, and it's perfect! :D
Aw, that's terrible. (Though probably very tasty, too :D)

If homosexuality is un-natural, unethical and downright immoral then facism certainly is as well, even more so. Therefore you should be culled before me. :D

:mp5: personally as i am a Fascist bastard i do have to say cull the lot. it is un-natural, unethical and downright immoral.

for your first ever post in these forum its a pity you didnt come up with something at least slightly sensible

also there should be a cure for homophobia that would be much better for society than a "cure" for homosexuality :headbang:

I'll say this: in 10000 years, we will be able to cure anything. Whether or not we should cure certain things is a matter of personal opinion.

By the time we have advanced enough technoligically to "cure" homosexuality we will be advanced enough socially that it will be unneccesary.

I'll say this: in 10000 years, we will be able to cure anything. Whether or not we should cure certain things is a matter of personal opinion.
I find it unlikely that we will ever be able to cure personal prejudices....

Omni-Palonie, it'll be not only unneccessary but also viewed as undesirable...

I find it unlikely that we will ever be able to cure personal prejudices....

Omni-Palonie, it'll be not only unneccessary but also viewed as undesirable...

Thats part of what I meant. :) As a gay man it inguriates me that people keep going on about "curing" me and those like me. The only "cures" available at the moment do more harm than good. Whose to say that messing about with the genome won't do the same.

Thats part of what I meant. :) As a gay man it inguriates me that people keep going on about "curing" me and those like me. The only "cures" available at the moment do more harm than good. Whose to say that messing about with the genome won't do the same.
True... the cures are worse than the so-called disease, although to be honest that isn't exactly hard; its like saying being heterosexual is a curable disease, ie unscientific bollocks.

Thats part of what I meant. :) As a gay man it inguriates me that people keep going on about "curing" me and those like me. The only "cures" available at the moment do more harm than good. Whose to say that messing about with the genome won't do the same.
Yes, or one might end up like this: http://www.aaa-int.or.jp/machan/diary/9808/penguinman.jpeg
Or even start dressing or acting like this! (http://www.unbuffered.com/moskau.html) :eek:
OK, enough with the penguins already! I just don't have anything constructive to add to such a silly thread... Just things like this silly Brokeback Penguins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtHegfiY4Mo&search=Brokeback%20penguin) trailer. :)

I have problems with homosexuality on moral grounds, but there is no way anyone should ever make it illegal or deny homosexuals rights.

Edit: If it is your opinion that homosexuality is not a disease, you are making a medical/scientific assumption. That's fine if that's what you believe, but it's very akin to Christians saying that the world was created 6000 years ago (IE, it's based on personal belief, not scientific method).

Reedit: This was atrocious example, but I hope people see my point.

People always say moral grounds. Are they your own morals or morals taught to you?

I have problems with homosexuality on moral grounds, but there is no way anyone should ever make it illegal or deny homosexuals rights.
This is a view I wish more people took... or part of it is, at any rate. See, morals are one's own and personal and should not be inflicted on others, and so Saladador here believes it is wrong but not that it should be banned. Course, I don't agree that its morally wrong, but there we go.

This is a view I wish more people took... or part of it is, at any rate. See, morals are one's own and personal and should not be inflicted on others, and so Saladador here believes it is wrong but not that it should be banned. Course, I don't agree that its morally wrong, but there we go.

I think it's vital that we get some common ground on this issue. Homosexuals often times want to change the beliefs of Christians or Muslims when their beliefs are based on writings they basically have no control over. What needs to be addressed is a social stace on these issues, not people's personal beliefs.

I think it's vital that we get some common ground on this issue. Homosexuals often times want to change the beliefs of Christians or Muslims when their beliefs are based on writings they basically have no control over. What needs to be addressed is a social stace on these issues, not people's personal beliefs.
The problem with that being that the social stance is affected and changed by the personal beliefs of the members of that society; I can accept your view, and you can accept my homosexuality, and we can get along, as the personal belief of one is not inflicted on the other.

I got nothing against homosexuals having rights. I haven't read all the rights, so I'm not sure if all of them apply to them, but, sure, they can have rights. But I also believe that, assuming the human race can survive another millenia or two, we will be able to locate the cause of homosexuality and cure it, and I believe that this is beneficial to society.Actually, I remember this same stance being advocated by some republican or another a while back - they think that since it is about 'helping' to cure a 'disease', it is more palatable to the public than saying that homosexuals are evil. So basically they were trying to use it to eliminate homosexuality without getting a lot of flak for hating on them - they just want to help, don't you see?

Actually, I remember this same stance being advocated by some republican or another a while back - they think that since it is about 'helping' to cure a 'disease', it is more palatable to the public than saying that homosexuals are evil. So basically they were trying to use it to eliminate homosexuality without getting a lot of flak for hating on them - they just want to help, don't you see?
Yes of course. Don't you see, Big Brother has always been there to "help" us.

Lets all just give up on life.:eek:

I think it's vital that we get some common ground on this issue. Homosexuals often times want to change the beliefs of Christians or Muslims when their beliefs are based on writings they basically have no control over. What needs to be addressed is a social stace on these issues, not people's personal beliefs.

The social stance in progressive countries such as those in western Europe is increasingly positive. There are still minorities with negative views and beliefs whether they be religious or simply homophoic but being in the minority they are being more or less ignored on more occasions. While the Christians and Muslims run around screaming that we are evil, dirty and sinful people deserving of death there will be fence sitters swayed to that point of view through scaremongery.

I have done lots of research and all un bias scientific studies suggest that while to some people homosexuality might meet the dictionary defintion as a pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms. it should not be classed as one because not enough is understood.

No sane parent wants to produce a genetic dead-end. Sexual deviance will be removed from the human genome, and sexual deviants will become one with the dodo. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :)


Since homosexuals - and bisexuals - reproduce, it's not a genetic dead-end, and your argument fails.

I like the smiley to dress up your hate as light-hearted good fun, though. Kudos!

The problem with that being that the social stance is affected and changed by the personal beliefs of the members of that society; I can accept your view, and you can accept my homosexuality, and we can get along, as the personal belief of one is not inflicted on the other.

The social stance in progressive countries such as those in western Europe is increasingly positive. There are still minorities with negative views and beliefs whether they be religious or simply homophoic but being in the minority they are being more or less ignored on more occasions. While the Christians and Muslims run around screaming that we are evil, dirty and sinful people deserving of death there will be fence sitters swayed to that point of view through scaremongery.

I think that, by and large, the reason for Christian Conservatives being such believers in the social control of government is not because of their faith, but because of their fear (this is coming from a former Christian conservative). Christianity constantly preaches against fear, but a lot of Christians tend to "look at the waves" (a little inside Christian lingo there) and run to the skirts of Government for cover. They say things like "We must protect the sanctity of Marriage" as if God is constrained or confined by the laws of men. What is needed is a certain degree of reciprocity and courage in our political system. If we as Christians, really are right, won't the future and God bear us out? All we need to do is use simple nonviolent dialogue to forward our opinions. Government is a machine of coersion, and should only be used when necessary to protect us personally.

Homosexuals, as well, need to understand that, if they attack people's faith directly, they're going to have a much harder time of it than if they simply fight for their own rights. Just my opinion.

Can you provide some sources to your claims about heterosexuals being disproportionately more likely to engage in violent crime, child molestation etc? Especially, the child molestation one. That would be a really nice fact to have when homophobic conservatives claim that the exact opposite is true.
You can use the Uniform Crime stats, or any of the databases and references the FBI cite. Basic crime statistics all support these; homosexuals are disproportionately likely to be VICTIMS of crimes, while simultaneously much less likely to perpetrate.

This is actually an argument that some homophobes used to twist into a justification for their bigotry, believe it or not. Here's how: the crime numbers (both in terms of offending and being victimized) for homosexuals are very similar to the numbers for mentally handicapped individuals. In other words, mentally handicapped people are more likely to be victims of crime, and much less likely to commit crime, and since homosexuals show the same "pattern" there are homophobes who somehow try to use this as "proof" that homosexuality is a defect. Nice, huh?

No sane parent wants to produce a genetic dead-end.
Homosexuality is not a genetic dead end. Will you people please open a book before you open your mouths? You're embarassing yourselves.

I think that, by and large, the reason for Christian Conservatives being such believers in the social control of government is not because of their faith, but because of their fear (this is coming from a former Christian conservative). Christianity constantly preaches against fear, but a lot of Christians tend to "look at the waves" (a little inside Christian lingo there) and run to the skirts of Government for cover. They say things like "We must protect the sanctity of Marriage" as if God is constrained or confined by the laws of men. What is needed is a certain degree of reciprocity and courage in our political system. If we as Christians, really are right, won't the future and God bear us out? All we need to do is use simple nonviolent dialogue to forward our opinions. Government is a machine of coersion, and should only be used when necessary to protect us personally.

Homosexuals, as well, need to understand that, if they attack people's faith directly, they're going to have a much harder time of it than if they simply fight for their own rights. Just my opinion.
Being neither Christian nor a conservative I couldn't say whether you are correct, only that that is how it appears to an outsider as well... And yes, it does have to be reciprocal, both sides have to stop the recriminations and so on. Yet neither side will....

Homosexuals, as well, need to understand that, if they attack people's faith directly, they're going to have a much harder time of it than if they simply fight for their own rights. Just my opinion.

Most of us have no desire or intention to attack people's faith directly. We'll question them about it until they give us answers but as many just say they don't need to answer them and refuse it does get very frustrating. Many Christians hide behind the cover of their faith instead of admitting real bigotry which is equally frustratying and sometimes you have to try and drag this truth from them.

Anyway any 'attacks' from the LGBT community on Christians and Muslims pale in comparison to the attacks that go the other way.

Homosexuals, as well, need to understand that, if they attack people's faith directly, they're going to have a much harder time of it than if they simply fight for their own rights. Just my opinion.
Yeah, just like how black people would have done much better keeping quiet and being nice and respectful, instead of challenging racists and demanding equal treatment. Or like how women did much better back when they quietly tried to gently convince men to give them equal rights...it's not like being uppity ever got anybody anywhere.

*eye roll*

Sorry, but "faith" should ALWAYS be attacked. If a person tries to use superstition to justify violating the human dignity of others, then they deserve zero respect. They should not be coddled, they should not be handled with kid gloves, they should be given a slap on the bum and sent to sit in their Shame Corner until they grow up.

You can use the Uniform Crime stats, or any of the databases and references the FBI cite. Basic crime statistics all support these; homosexuals are disproportionately likely to be VICTIMS of crimes, while simultaneously much less likely to perpetrate.

This is actually an argument that some homophobes used to twist into a justification for their bigotry, believe it or not. Here's how: the crime numbers (both in terms of offending and being victimized) for homosexuals are very similar to the numbers for mentally handicapped individuals. In other words, mentally handicapped people are more likely to be victims of crime, and much less likely to commit crime, and since homosexuals show the same "pattern" there are homophobes who somehow try to use this as "proof" that homosexuality is a defect. Nice, huh?
The brilliance of humanity has astonished me yet again.:rolleyes:

I readed an article in new scientist magazine a while back that said being gay could be genetic, and survived despite gays not reproducing, because the recessive gene also seems to increase fertility, so parents with gay children have more children (about 0.5 more i think) than parents of only straight ochildren. so while one of their kids might be gay, another would only get one copy of the gene and therefore have more children. I found it interesting.

:mp5: personally as i am a Fascist bastard i do have to say cull the lot. it is un-natural, unethical and downright immoral.

Let's cull all the Fascists, they are unnatural, unethical and downright immoral. They advocate genocide, which violates my belief system. To arms! To arms!

AIDs is the solution, not a problem.

Knock it off. This is a particularly ignorant thing to say given that "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8776/24482/278527.html?d=dmtContent

You may wish to investigate further here before making such a silly and flamebaity post again: http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8776/24482.html

Yeah, just like how black people would have done much better keeping quiet and being nice and respectful, instead of challenging racists and demanding equal treatment. Or like how women did much better back when they quietly tried to gently convince men to give them equal rights...it's not like being uppity ever got anybody anywhere.

*eye roll*

Sorry, but "faith" should ALWAYS be attacked. If a person tries to use superstition to justify violating the human dignity of others, then they deserve zero respect. They should not be coddled, they should not be handled with kid gloves, they should be given a slap on the bum and sent to sit in their Shame Corner until they grow up.

How effective do you find the rhetoric, "you're all sinners and going to hell" in convincing others of Christianity? What makes you think it will work any better for you, just because you're "right?"

Edit:So you're saying that, if a person has less than perfect respect for his fellow man, he loses all you respect? A bit of an overreaction if you ask me...

Anyway any 'attacks' from the LGBT community on Christians and Muslims pale in comparison to the attacks that go the other way.

I think we pretty much agree, but the kind of logic, "but they're much worse than we are" is problematic IMO, because it goes through the lens of your personal perspective. I would say that you're right though, but that doesn't mean that rhetoric on both sides shouldn't be toned down.

Let me clarify that I have witnessed it once or twice in grown animals, but only when there was a bunch of males cooped together with little or no females, especially among chickens. The only time I saw females acting unnatural was a hen that humped a rooster. Not exactly homosexual, but very confused nonetheless. Y'all have still yet to prove homosexuality is natural among animals or humans.Um...if you've witnessed it happening in nature, that makes it natural, since natural = occurring in nature.

You are forgetting humans minds are much more advanced than animals'. We can "invent" new ways to do things that were never meant to happen. Who says they were never meant to happen? Perhaps they were meant to happen, and that's why we invented them?

Sin was never meant to exist in this world. But alas, the Great Deciever fixed that problem in the Garden of Eden, using our very first ancestors. Don't be silly. Everybody knows that humans are the product of Zeus reproducing with the invisible pink unicorn, and that Soldor the Magic Leprechaun tricked humans using fairy dust.

And before you Great and Mighty Evolutionist Know-It-All's crucify me, I offer you a challenge (which is also open to the homo's). When you can find documents and manuscripts written by those who lived in times where there were animals in transitionary stages, or research that proves homosexuality is a biological makeup, I might listen to you.Who's to say that humans have been writing during the time that animals have been in transitionary stages? Perhaps it takes millions of years? Or perhaps the so-called "new species" that are occasionally "discovered" are simply animals that are in the process of transition?

I find it rather disturbing to know millions of people on this globe actually believe in the theory of evolution (which in reality, is no more than a hypothesis). Much like the theory of gravity. It's awfully disturbing how many people believe in that.

I think it rather conveinient for you to say dinos existed before humans...billions of years ago. It's because you have no answers!! YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! The Bible speaks in Isaiah 30:6 of the "young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent,". Job speaks of leviathan and behemoth, the former who breathed fire and who's armor was inpenetrable, and the latter who could drink up a river and who's tail was like a great cedar of Lebanon. Of course, I don't expect you to believe the Bible, but it WAS written by people who were there, and that is more than anything you have!!!:mp5:Uh...the Bible was written by people who wrote of events (at least) one or two centuries after the fact.

Thanks to all contributors for the laugh, especially those two puppets (Or is it puppies?)

As for the "Homosexuality is unnatural, nay, teh 3v1l!!!1"-people:

Prove it´s unnatural. Seems to me that this thread alone contains enough information indicating the contrary, and some research on your own (reading books and thingys, thinking for yourself once in a while and stuff) might further prove that point.
So, please present me with scientific evidence that homosexuality is not natural.
BTW, car tires are most definitively not natural. Shall we abolish, oh, so sorry, 'cure' them, too?

Penguin Pie? :eek:

How do people even find these four month old threads to gravedig? :confused:

How do people even find these four month old threads to gravedig? :confused:
Seems someone followed a link I posted... Since I posted the link to my recipe for Penguin Pie in this thread today.

Never dreamed anyone would actually post in this thread again, however. There sure are some weird people out there :p

*awaits cries of "NAZI!"*
Is it possible to self-Godwin a thread? :p

My friend, after the massive advance we've had in the last century, if we survive another millenia we'll be able to cure death.

I think you kinda missed the point where homosexuality is not a disease to be "cured" to begin with.

But as long as you're willing to think that way, how long before humanity can cure - for example - the ignorance and bigotry of people like you?

Remember, boys and girls, this is a dead thread - Freshly gravedug. Do not expect fruitful debate here.

Advice: Leave thread alone, let it disappear back into oblivion.