NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems like the thing people get hung up on the most is the gayness itself. I will henceforth discuss all manner of falsehoods, misconceptions, and outright stupidities coming form the anti-gay crowd.

The people who want to outlaw gay marriage and set homosexuals on fire tink gayness is icky and gross, and the gay person chose that lifestyle, and the gay person wants to turn other people gay, and the gay person wants to defecate on the altar and stick the crucifix up his ass, and that God somehow cares.

WRONG.

Gay people CANNOT chose to be gay. Simply, completely, utterly untrue. Think for a moment: why would ANY person choose to be someone that is reviled by a certai part of society, the subject of ridicule, and the target of bigots and scaremongers? Why would someone CHOOSE to be gay? It's not like a guy was walking home and suddenly stopped, thinking "You know? I think I'd like to fuck guys from now on." Doesn't work that way. Boys don't hit puberty and have to pick which gender they're attracted to, there is no "Choose Your Own Adventure" for sexual preference.

Gay people do not have magic powers that turn other people gay. If that were true, everyone in the world would be gay and there would be no discussion about it. Matthew Shepard wouldn't be dead if he could've turned his attackers gay.

There is no such thing a a "Gay agenda." If there is, it is simply a notebook where gay people put dates and calendars. And, if there is, it's the worst agenda in the world, even worse than the Internation Jewish Conspiracy, the Freemasons, and the Catholics. I mean, the Gay Agenda can't even keep laws off the books outlawing gay marriage! At least those other boys have some clout.

And finally, in a pluralistic society, it is ridiculous to assume that because one religion says something is bad, that is suddenly true for everyone. Gayness, as I said, does not spread like dandelions and mice, and doesn't really affect everonye. Two guys having sex in an apartment in New York doesn't cause car troubles for churchgoers in Kansas, somehow making gay people responsible for the "War on Christianity."

Now, we may discuss.

[multitude of irritatingly absent applause smilies] Damn straight. Heh, no pun intended.

If you clear away all of the lies, distortions, deliberate misconceptions, and other bullshit, there's no basis for opposition of gay rights or marriage. None. Zero. Which is why religious conservatives are so afraid of truth.

Ex veritas libertas: The truth will set you free.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.

Gayness, as I said, does not spread like dandelions and mice, and doesn't really affect everonye. Two guys having sex in an apartment in New York doesn't cause car troubles for churchgoers in Kansas, somehow making gay people responsible for the "War on Christianity."

Yay. :D

If one stops and think about it for a minute, homosexuality is nature's form of population control. If all humans were attracted to the opposite sex, we'd have an even bigger population control problem. Homosexuality exists because nature needs a form of defense again human reproduction, since we have long life spans.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.
So you think being gay is a choice? In that case, try jerking off to some gay porn. If you can't get it up then it's not a choice. If you can, congratulations, you're gay.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.

Is that royal plural or are you the screen name used by a group? Or are you a hive consciousness? If so, I patent you.

Also, are you talking about two opinions held by the OP, or an opinion each for me and the OP? Either way, do you have any particular reason or justification for the supposed retardation of his/our statements, or do your beliefs require no logic, evidence, or justification?

So you think being gay is a choice? In that case, try jerking off to some gay porn. If you can't get it up then it's not a choice. If you can, congratulations, you're gay.
It is if you're bi, because then you can choose if you want to be straight or gay! :p Sorry, I had to get that bit of jackassory out...

So you think being gay is a choice? In that case, try jerking off to some gay porn. If you can't get it up then it's not a choice. If you can, congratulations, you're gay.

sigged

It is if you're bi, because then you can choose if you want to be straight or gay! :p Sorry, I had to get that bit of jackassory out...
Well, I'm a regular, blue collar guy. Regular guys figure that either you suck cock or you don't. Bisexual is just gay with more female friends.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.


Since my opinion is not a living consciousness, and therefore incapable of having an IQ, it cannot be retarded. I can only assume that you were referring to me and Free Mercantile, and therefore inform you that both of our IQs are well above the 70 range, therefore making it impossible for us to be retarded.

Now, come back when you can provide actual discussion instead of childish rejection.

Well, I'm a regular, blue collar guy. Regular guys figure that either you suck cock or you don't. Bisexual is just gay with more female friends.
It's for the swingers. It helps when the pickin's get slim.

Now, come back when you can provide actual discussion instead of childish rejection.
That's all they can offer because there is no real argument against homosexuality.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.

Please tell me. Do you like chicken?

I'm anti-gay, and I already was aware of all of this.

then you are stupid

Dear Big Gay Thread Starter,

I recently heard a Christian Conservative say that if we (as a country) give equal rights to gays, then whats to stop us from releasing all the murderers and thieves from jail and letting them have their way with us and our property? They also pondered that allowing gay marriage was akin to full blown communism and marrying toasters. This guy sounds really smart to me and I had nothing to counter him with because of his massive intellect, so he changed my mind, but I am giving you the chance to change it back.

Aren't gays really just violent atheistic criminals out to destroy America and eventually the world while they have their way with our sons, daughters and family pets, rather than the loving, happy, fasihion conscious average American citizen that my former gay friends always seemed to be on the outside.

Sincerely,
Dimwitted Stooge

Aren't gays really just violent atheistic criminals out to destroy America and eventually the world while they have their way with our sons, daughters and family pets...

Why, yes, yes we are. So?

I'm wondering.

Are our sexual preferences an aspect of our personality?

I mean, I don't choose to be distrusting of other people, nor do I choose to take great excitement in bizarre philosophies, yet they're a part of who I am in what seems to be the same way as the fact that I find women physically attractive.

Dear Big Gay Thread Starter,

I recently heard a Christian Conservative say that if we (as a country) give equal rights to gays, then whats to stop us from releasing all the murderers and thieves from jail and letting them have their way with us and our property? They also pondered that allowing gay marriage was akin to full blown communism and marrying toasters. This guy sounds really smart to me and I had nothing to counter him with because of his massive intellect, so he changed my mind, but I am giving you the chance to change it back.

Aren't gays really just violent atheistic criminals out to destroy America and eventually the world while they have their way with our sons, daughters and family pets, rather than the loving, happy, fasihion conscious average American citizen that my former gay friends always seemed to be on the outside.

Sincerely,
Dimwitted Stooge
The war is coming.

Why, yes, yes we are. So?

You might wanna watch out with the irony there. Something tells me that those narrowminded people that condemn homosexuality have a poorly developed sense of humor, and are capable of using your post as an 'argument' against gays....:confused:

The war is coming.
What, the flame war? World war 3? The Fabulous war? The War of Sticks, Stoners and Pink Jello?

You might wanna watch out with the irony there. Something tells me that those narrowminded people that condemn homosexuality have a poorly developed sense of humor, and are capable of using your post as an 'argument' against gays....:confused:

You seem to be under the impression I'd give a vagina.

I'm wondering.

Are our sexual preferences an aspect of our personality?

I mean, I don't choose to be distrusting of other people, nor do I choose to take great excitement in bizarre philosophies, yet they're a part of who I am in what seems to be the same way as the fact that I find women physically attractive.


I definitely think they are. Personality encompasses all aspects of a person's behavior, and their behavior helps define who they are. Without a doubt, sexual preference affects your personality. Is it based on personalty? I doubt it, that wouldn't make any sense in the larger scope of sexuality.


And, for the slipery slope arguement: Bullshit. There's always a slippery slope to somewhere, and for some reason it's populated with pedophiles, bestiality, murder, rape, and cable theft. If you know any gay people, I challenge you to name some that consciousl say (without humour) that they want to go out and rape, steal, free murderers, and generally cause mayhem.

Granted, they're out there, but the minority should never be the rule, always the exception. Some could argue that in stead of outlawing gay marriage, we should outlaw straight marriage, becasue it's responsible for 100% of spousal abuse. That's a damn slippery slope right there.

What, the flame war? World war 3? The Fabulous war? The War of Sticks, Stoners and Pink Jello?


From the sounds of it and the title of this thread, it might be the Faaaaabulous Flame War. Pun intended.

I'm anti-gay, and I already was aware of all of this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: all you homophobes need a big, black, atheist cock up your bumhole to see what you're missing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: all you homophobes need a big, black, atheist cock up your bumhole to see what you're missing.

Don't be silly. We all need a big, black atheist cock up our bumholes. Why should the homophobic tards get to have all the fun?

And, for the slipery slope arguement: Bullshit.
Heh... The thing I love about using Slippery Slope arguments is that they are one of the only forms of argument that can be used against their own usage. I mean, if you start treating single events as inevitable trends, where does that leave us? We'll all end up not trusting a single deviation from common convention and wind up mindless zombies under a collective consciousness.

:p

Don't be silly. We all need a big, black atheist cock up our bumholes.
True. Homophobes need it stat though. Forget the lube! Just spit in your hand!

make mine big, black and viagrafied for long lastingness

True. Homophobes need it stat though. Forget the lube! Just spit in your hand!

Spit? Bitch, please, some of us like it rough.

Don't be silly. We all need a big, black atheist cock up our bumholes. Why should the homophobic tards get to have all the fun?
Is it wrong to say that I don't find that prospect particularly alluring? All of this openness of preference leaves me confused as to what I'm allowed to express or not... :confused:

Spit? Bitch, please, some of us like it rough.
I was going to say "you have no idea, hun" but then realised who I was speaking to.

Gay people CANNOT chose to be gay. Simply, completely, utterly untrue. Think for a moment: why would ANY person choose to be someone that is reviled by a certai part of society, the subject of ridicule, and the target of bigots and scaremongers? Why would someone CHOOSE to be gay? It's not like a guy was walking home and suddenly stopped, thinking "You know? I think I'd like to fuck guys from now on." Doesn't work that way. Boys don't hit puberty and have to pick which gender they're attracted to, there is no "Choose Your Own Adventure" for sexual preference.


Oh please, Organisms dont evolve into a dead end and thats what homosexuality is a dead end. When you are homosexual you have almost no chance to pass on your genes unless you are a woman and go to a sperm bank. Homosexuality is just a cry for attention or a mental disorder depending on the case IT IS NOT NATURAL like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that. The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal therefore it must be labeled as a mental disorder or just a pitiful cry for attention "oh Iam gay I need rights too!" gays already have rights but saying its natural or you dont pick to be gay is bullshit.

Is it wrong to say that I don't find that prospect particularly alluring? All of this openness of preference leaves me confused as to what I'm allowed to express or not... :confused:
Express whatever. If 'teh gays' can talk about buttsecks then surely 'teh non-gays' can?


Buttsecks.

Is it wrong to say that I don't find that prospect particularly alluring? All of this openness of preference leaves me confused as to what I'm allowed to express or not... :confused:

Yes, it is very, very wrong. Unnatural, forsooth. You need to report to the nearest refagification camp.

Don't be silly. We all need a big, black atheist cock up our bumholes. Why should the homophobic tards get to have all the fun?
I can supply the big and black part. But I'm not atheist

like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that. The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal

Here, have a nice a cup of STFU! (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)

Oh please, Organisms dont evolve into a dead end and thats what homosexuality is a dead end. When you are homosexual you have almost no chance to pass on your genes unless you are a woman and go to a sperm bank. Homosexuality is just a cry for attention or a mental disorder depending on the case IT IS NOT NATURAL like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that. The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal therefore it must be labeled as a mental disorder or just a pitiful cry for attention "oh Iam gay I need rights too!" gays already have rights but saying its natural or you dont pick to be gay is bullshit.


So you chose to ignore your want of cock? You deny your lust for man-on-man sex0rz because God told you evolution doesnt produce gay animals?

You chose to be attracted to women and chose not to be attracted to men?

I can supply the big and black part. But I'm not atheist

Oh, we have ways of curing such unhealthy mental disorders as religion. You just supply your big, beautiful ebony rod, and the rest will be taken care of.

Here, have a nice a cup of STFU! (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html)


Can you say inbreeding cause mental disorders? Monkeys and other mammals That live in close knitt groups tend to inbreed thus only further proving that Homosexuality is a Disorder not natural

I can supply the big and black part. But I'm not atheist


It'll have to do. Please step into my "office"

Oh please, Organisms dont evolve into a dead end and thats what homosexuality is a dead end. When you are homosexual you have almost no chance to pass on your genes unless you are a woman and go to a sperm bank. Homosexuality is just a cry for attention or a mental disorder depending on the case IT IS NOT NATURAL like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that. The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal therefore it must be labeled as a mental disorder or just a pitiful cry for attention "oh Iam gay I need rights too!" gays already have rights but saying its natural or you dont pick to be gay is bullshit.


Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Biology should be a required course in the US.

*SIGH*

So you chose to ignore your want of cock? You deny your lust for man-on-man sex0rz because God told you evolution doesnt produce gay animals?

You chose to be attracted to women and chose not to be attracted to men?

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes

Oh, we have ways of curing such unhealthy mental disorders as religion. You just supply your big, beautiful ebony rod, and the rest will be taken care of.
*snickers* I'm so flattered.

Can you say inbreeding cause mental disorders? Monkeys and other mammals That live in close knitt groups tend to inbreed thus only further proving that Homosexuality is a Disorder not natural

NO, seeing that it is a natural condition of most animals around the world (especially birds), PROVES that it is indeed natural.

I was going to say "you have no idea, hun" but then realised who I was speaking to.

Tearing is caring.

Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Biology should be a required course in the US.

*SIGH*
It was at my school. But then again, not many people understood it.

Can you say inbreeding cause mental disorders? Monkeys and other mammals That live in close knitt groups tend to inbreed thus only further proving that Homosexuality is a Disorder not natural

Actually that is very rare but you really don't know anything about primatology now do you?

]Oh please, Organisms dont evolve into a dead end and thats what homosexuality is a dead end.
Yes they do. Look at hummingbirds. If the specific plant they feed from dies then they are fucked. They have evolved into a dead end.
When you are homosexual you have almost no chance to pass on your genes unless you are a woman and go to a sperm bank. Homosexuality is just a cry for attention or a mental disorder depending on the case IT IS NOT NATURAL like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that.
Nothing goes against nature. Only against our understanding of it.
The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship
Em, no. Don't worry, there's a consolation prize for being wrong though. That big black cock that was mentioned earlier.
That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal therefore it must be labeled as a mental disorder or just a pitiful cry for attention
Em, no. There have been gay animals for about as long as there have been gay humans. IMS there is a species of walrus that is only straight during mating season, and gay the rest of the year. I guess those animals evolved into a dead end too.
"oh Iam gay I need rights too!"
Woot, coming out party!
gays already have rights
Some, but less than straight people. So it's not good enough.
but saying its natural or you dont pick to be gay is bullshit.
Of course it's natural. Do you really think in this day and age people decide to be gay, knowing full well that they might be subjected to all manner of abuse because of it? Now that is bullshit, grade A industrial strength.

Can you say inbreeding cause mental disorders? Monkeys and other mammals That live in close knitt groups tend to inbreed thus only further proving that Homosexuality is a Disorder not natural

The abysmal state of your writing, coupled with the fact that you obviously didn't read that article, leads me to assume it's due to illiteracy.

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes

Have you considered that in the past, homosexuals have had to take wives for fear of being thrown out of their society or even killed if they came out? Thus genes are passed down that way?

*snickers* I'm so flattered.

With that tasty, chocolaty bar of yours, the pleasure's all mine.

Can you say inbreeding cause mental disorders? Monkeys and other mammals That live in close knitt groups tend to inbreed thus only further proving that Homosexuality is a Disorder not natural
Inbreeding increases the possibility of a genetic disorder already present in the family being passed on. It doesn't cause new disorders to magically appear.

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes


Well then you are bisexual if you are turned on by the thought of sex with men and women alike. Just because you choose to have sex with only women because you want to pass on yrou genes doesnt make you not bisexual.

I am bisexual too, welcome to the club. I chose to marry a woman because I love her, not becausse I want to procreate. In fact we have tons of sex, yet we are never going to have kids b3cause we dont want them. Sex isn't only about passing on our genes to many of us. Obviously evolution doesnt seem to think so either since there are multitudes of gay and bisexual animals.

Tearing is caring.
I shall add this to my list of "witty fag quotes."

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes
No, natural selection 'roots out' the least likely to survive. But humans interfere with natural selection all the time by doing silly things like curing the sick and healing the injured, and not leaving stupid babies out on a rock for wolves to eat.

By the way, your English is not so great.

With that tasty, chocolaty bar of yours, the pleasure's all mine.
Mmmm... chocolate....

Well, I have nothing really important to say. Fass is really just taking all the ammo and firing it before I can.

I shall add this to my list of "witty fag quotes."

You better have a lot of paper handy... oh, who am I kidding, of course you do. Always prepared!

Mmmm... chocolate....

Well, I have nothing really important to say. Fass is really just taking all the ammo and firing it before I can.


I love it when Fass fires it at me

Mmmm... chocolate....

Well, I have nothing really important to say. Fass is really just taking all the ammo and firing it before I can.
It's best not to compete with Fass in taking apart stupid people. He's very good at it.

Yes, it is very, very wrong. Unnatural, forsooth. You need to report to the nearest refagification camp.
I think they can even get to you through subversive mind control. I'm starting to think gay thoughts myself lately. :(

or do I mean :D ?

Mmmm... chocolate....

Wait until you get to the creamy part.

Well, I have nothing really important to say. Fass is really just taking all the ammo and firing it before I can.

Don't worry, I can control myself and adapt to your pace.

I think they can even get to you through subversive mind control. I'm starting to think gay thoughts myself lately. :(

Next time come, act on them, and don't forget to postpixkthnx.

or do I mean :D ?

See, becoming gay is making you gay already.

Wait until you get to the creamy part.



Don't worry, I can control myself and adapt to your pace.
Oh, my favorite. And that's okay. I've been debating this for the past two days. I'm tired.

Next time come, act on them, and don't forget to postpixkthnx.

I can't act on them and take pictures at the same time... besides, I have no scanner.


See, becoming gay is making you gay already.
Now I know why they call it that. :p

I'm afraid that Betty Bowers "The World's Best Christian" has spilled the beans and evilly revealed The Gay Agenda. Fortunately, all hair dressers have punished her by boycotting the woman, and she now has to get her hair done by heterosexuals - and boy does it show!

But since it's been published, I'll copy-paste it here:



As every Christian knows, there is only one enemy that threatens our entire civilization. And I am, of course, not talking about Satan. I'm talking about those damned homosexuals! Yes, they give otherwise dull hair radiant highlights and our imperfect décor those fabulous flourishes that elude our more predictable heterosexual sensibilities, but at what price? In exchange for a little panache, we allow homosexuals to steal our children and destroy our Christian marriages. And how do they do this? With their secret masterplan -- The Homosexual Agenda!

Many a well-intentioned person has asked me, "Betty, what exactly is The Homosexual Agenda?" Well, if you have to ask, you are probably already under its pernicious influence and blithely hop-scotching your way straight to Hell. Nevertheless, the details of The Homosexual Agenda have -- up until this day -- been kept more secret than the nature of John Travolta's and Tom Cruise's marriages. But I am pleased to announce that through innumerable free vodka sea-breezes and some artful Christian skullduggery, I have gotten my hands on an authentic copy of The Homosexual Agenda. Praise the Lord!

I have had my secretaries, Miss Anne Thrope and Anita Priceczech, transcribe The Homosexual Agenda from the back of a used cocktail napkin (the original is to be placed in the Smithsonian Institute) for your convenient reference. Never again shall we be surprised by what these malevolent Nancy Boys are up to. While they may still be able to surprise us with a cunningly perfect piece of Chinese porcelain for our Biederimeier end-table, they will never again be able to surreptitiously take over our culture, families and prime-time television without God-fearing Christians being one step ahead of them! Praise the Lord!


The Homosexual Agenda

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.

10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.

12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

Any one who doubts gayness is natural I have a video of two male donkeys screwing each other silly, and they mate it very clear they both know each other are male. This is quite common I have all so seen a male Horse screw a bunch of cows cross eyed so interspecies mating is all so very common (We silly primates call it bestiality)

I go by the good ol saying, if it hurts non do as ye will (Obvious disclaimer is S&M but since for them it is pleasure thus not hurting it still works).

Children are just that, there for such things are harmful to them no matter the species.

An adult is an adult, no matter the species. So for all thoughs retards (Which they must be due to the staggering amount of evidence against their position) that still think it is un-natural. find a horny dog, preferably a Lab, bend over, and that will surely answer the question in a very direct way.

I do computer repairs and there have been far to many times where the client has a dog and I must get on all fours to service the machine, now days I will ask them to keep the dog in another room, take a wild guess why!

hey, i'm not personally homophobic, i have gay friends ya de ya de da, but if being gay is something you cant help, perhaps being repulsed by men eho leike cock is also?

I'm afraid that Betty Bowers "The World's Best Christian" has spilled the beans and evilly revealed The Gay Agenda. Fortunately, all hair dressers have punished her by boycotting the woman, and she now has to get her hair done by heterosexuals - and boy does it show!

But since it's been published, I'll copy-paste it here:
Something seems a little off about that 3:33pm entry. I just can't put my finger on it.

hey, i'm not personally homophobic, i have gay friends ya de ya de da, but if being gay is something you cant help, perhaps being repulsed by men eho leike cock is also?
Fortunately spelling and grammar is something you can help.

Fortunately spelling and grammar is something you can help.

see? that's just pathetic, ok so i made some typos and I didn't check before I posted, could you read it? did it really make that much difference? What exactly are you achieving by criticising, grow up.

I'm anti-gay, and I already was aware of all of this.


if you're anit-gay, does tha mean you don't like gay people? Or are you trying to tell us that you about all of these feacts about being gay and want to change the world for the betterment of the gay population because they are so afflicted by persecution?

either way, I think that you are either you are a jerk who hates homosexuals for nogood reason, you are being deffensive and are secretly gay yourself, or you just hate the though of you being gay becauseyou might finally understand the pain, torture, pressure and beatings recieved for something as trivial as your sexual reference.

get your act together before you diss people. make yourself clear, then maybe people will listen to what you have to say. And never base anything on fact people, even the ancient texts of the bible, though proved to exist from way back then, could just be some group of guys from that period seeing how much trouble he could cause by proving others' stupidity.

take basis from experience, the only real fact, and know that if you lie, God won't smite you. but humand kind will

Actually hating is not so natural, well hating based on ones preference is not. You where taught by other retarded bigots that hating some ones sexuality was good, and since at the time you know nothing different you took it at face value, how ever now you learn that this is not true you are left with three real viable options

A: Take a longe time and throughly learn about all sides and the science and come to the realization that to be homophobic is as stupid to being scared of breathing.

B: Learn that your hatred is totally illogical and counter productive and there for grit your teeth and not make an idiot of your self by learning the facts but decide to be an idiot any way and continue to hate them, but just be allot more quiet about it.

C: Be a retarded bigot who makes no effort to educate them selves and spew centuries old retarded ineffective crap that every one is sick of hearing.

see? that's just pathetic, ok so i made some typos and I didn't check before I posted, could you read it? did it really make that much difference? What exactly are you achieving by criticising, grow up.
I doubt I'm gonna grow much more, apart from growing old. But that won't be for a while.

if you're anit-gay, does tha mean you don't like gay people? Or are you trying to tell us that you about all of these feacts about being gay and want to change the world for the betterment of the gay population because they are so afflicted by persecution?

either way, I think that you are either you are a jerk who hates homosexuals for nogood reason, you are being deffensive and are secretly gay yourself, or you just hate the though of you being gay becauseyou might finally understand the pain, torture, pressure and beatings recieved for something as trivial as your sexual reference.

get your act together before you diss people. make yourself clear, then maybe people will listen to what you have to say. And never base anything on fact people, even the ancient texts of the bible, though proved to exist from way back then, could just be some group of guys from that period seeing how much trouble he could cause by proving others' stupidity.

take basis from experience, the only real fact, and know that if you lie, God won't smite you. but humand kind will
Being anti-gay doesn't mean he hates gays. It just means he's anti-gay.

Something seems a little off about that 3:33pm entry. I just can't put my finger on it.
Perhaps the fact that they're simultaneously recruiting and molesting the children? I would have thought molestation isn't the word you'd use for a willing participant...

What is there to object to?

Are gay people invading your homes and dancing to the village people in your kitchen? Are they having intercourse in the street? Are they an incarnation of satan? Fuck no.

I'm sorry people, its pure intolerance. I've heard every argument going regarding homosexuality being immoral/ unnatural/ deplorable, and yet those critics accept other concepts that are equally fallible to such logic. Anti-homosexual sentiment is essentially a lovely blend of intolerance and ignorance.

hey, i'm not personally homophobic, i have gay friends ya de ya de da, but if being gay is something you cant help, perhaps being repulsed by men eho leike cock is also?


But you weren't raised to be disgusted by cock, that was either taught or picked up. For you, the idea of having sex with a man is disgusting. Which is acceptable. To many gay people, the thought of having sex with a woman is disgusting.

Does that mean they're disgusted by women? No. Does that mean they are repulsed by women who like cock? No. Your repulsion to men who like cock is something that you picked up from someone. Your repulsion to cock itself is something your were born with.

and, just for fun, cockcockcockcockcockcock.

Cock.

lol dont get me wrong, gay men dont repulse me neither does the thought of gay sex, i;m very much a man of the "try anything once" policy, but we al have phobia's i'm scared of lady's with facial hair, i can't actually be near them they scare me half to death, so if a man isnt comfortable around gays i dont have a problem with him, perhaps if he were to actively attempt to hinder their human rights i would..

lol dont get me wrong, gay men dont repulse me neither does the thought of gay sex, i;m very much a man of the "try anything once" policy, but we al have phobia's i'm scared of lady's with facial hair, i can't actually be near them they scare me half to death, so if a man isnt comfortable around gays i dont have a problem with him, perhaps if he were to actively attempt to hinder their human rights i would..
As long as you realize that it's an irrational position.

yeh its irrational but you can't tell me that there are many people without some form of irrationality

yeh its irrational but you can't tell me that there are many people without some form of irrationality
True, but most of them aren't trying to legislate their irrationality.

But you weren't raised to be disgusted by cock, that was either taught or picked up. For you, the idea of having sex with a man is disgusting. Which is acceptable. To many gay people, the thought of having sex with a woman is disgusting.

Does that mean they're disgusted by women? No. Does that mean they are repulsed by women who like cock? No. Your repulsion to men who like cock is something that you picked up from someone. Your repulsion to cock itself is something your were corn with.

and, just for fun, cockcockcockcockcockcock.

Cock.

Hey if he wants to be repulsed by gay people, it's his right, as long as he doesnt do anything violent or restrict their rights (as in marriage)...

Is that royal plural or are you the screen name used by a group? Or are you a hive consciousness? If so, I patent you.

Also, are you talking about two opinions held by the OP, or an opinion each for me and the OP? Either way, do you have any particular reason or justification for the supposed retardation of his/our statements, or do your beliefs require no logic, evidence, or justification?


Free Mercantile States, you are a genius. I salute you.

OK, I have an idea. A scientific one at that.

Remember the post about how "humanity doesn't evolve into a dead end"? It said that, because gay people don't reproduce, there can't possibly be a gene for it. I've got the perfect refutation of it.

Genetic diseases.

There are many genetic diseases, inherited from the genes of the parents, that will kill a person before they reach reproducing age. How are these genes preserved? They're recessive genes, it's possible to be a carrier without them affecting you.

So maybe the gay gene is a recessive gene. Maybe being gay acts like a genetic disease. Fortunately though, this "disease" has no ill-effects (other than the bigotry of small minds), does not kill those who have it, and in fact its only symptom is a sexual preference for the same sex.

To sum up: being gay is not a choice, it is not a sin, it is natural, and anyone who believes otherwise can fuck off.

To sum up: being gay is not a choice, it is not a sin, it is natural, and anyone who believes otherwise can fuck off.
Sins are essentially arbitrarily chosen by a given religious group, so I don't think it's entirely correct to say that homosexuality (or even heterosexuality, or even love at all) is inherently not sinful. If the Christian faith says its a sin then the Christian faith says its a sin. No big deal, really.

Otherwise, I think I agree, though perhaps your likening of sexual preference to disease could be done with a little more tact? :D

If one stops and think about it for a minute, homosexuality is nature's form of population control. If all humans were attracted to the opposite sex, we'd have an even bigger population control problem. Homosexuality exists because nature needs a form of defense again human reproduction, since we have long life spans.

Long life span my ass. 73% of the population never reaches 75 years of age. And if all the people in the world were seperated by equal distances (spread out evenly) we'd have 30-somethin' percent of the planet left over. And if all the wealth in the world was divided evenly among everyone, everyone would be at least middle class. That's a bunch of bullshit. And besides, you know what would be an even better way to control our population? Kill all the gays/lesbos/bi's. And the world would be a much better place to live too.
(all statistics/analogies from some scientific stat. site. no lie.)

Long life span my ass. 73% of the population never reaches 75 years of age. And if all the people in the world were seperated by equal distances (spread out evenly) we'd have 30-somethin' percent of the planet left over. And if all the wealth in the world was divided evenly among everyone, everyone would be at least middle class. That's a bunch of bullshit. And besides, you know what would be an even better way to control our population? Kill all the gays/lesbos/bi's. And the world would be a much better place to live too.
(all statistics/analogies from some scientific stat. site. no lie.)

Comitting genocide on a scale even the nazis never got to? Yes, a much better world indeed...

(all statistics/analogies from some scientific stat. site. no lie.)
Erm... I think it actually counts against you if you claim outside sources for your analogies...

Long life span my ass. 73% of the population never reaches 75 years of age. And if all the people in the world were seperated by equal distances (spread out evenly) we'd have 30-somethin' percent of the planet left over. And if all the wealth in the world was divided evenly among everyone, everyone would be at least middle class. That's a bunch of bullshit. And besides, you know what would be an even better way to control our population? Kill all the gays/lesbos/bi's. And the world would be a much better place to live too.
(all statistics/analogies from some scientific stat. site. no lie.)

What's your point, outside of the "kill all gays" thing? His point was that we'd have an even longer lifespan, and you responded with "well, our lifespan's not that long now." and some other statistic. How does that refute him?


Ah, genetic diseases- the ace in the hole. I'll admit that it's entirely possible that homosexuality is cause by genes- which only lends credence to the fact that it's not a person's choice.

Genetic diseases are not choices, obviously. A fetus doesn't just up and say, "Hey, Down's Sydrome sounds fun!" However, we now face a different dilemma- gay people are neither mentally impaired or physically handicapped because of this so-called "gay gene." So, do they qualify as diseased if they can function normally in society? And another facet- since we treat kids with Down's Syndrome and mental retardation specially and don't discriminate against the, would gay people fall under handicap laws and thus be get better access to rights that way?

Can anyone imagine two guys in a bar:

Guy 1: "Let's go beat us up a fag!"
Guy 2: "Beat up a cripple? What's wrong with you!"

Long life span my ass. 73% of the population never reaches 75 years of age. And if all the people in the world were seperated by equal distances (spread out evenly) we'd have 30-somethin' percent of the planet left over. And if all the wealth in the world was divided evenly among everyone, everyone would be at least middle class. That's a bunch of bullshit. And besides, you know what would be an even better way to control our population? Kill all the gays/lesbos/bi's. And the world would be a much better place to live too.
(all statistics/analogies from some scientific stat. site. no lie.)

Well then, it shoudl be no problem for you to find the link to this information if you are in fact no lying.

75 isnt a logn life span? Tell me, what was the human life span before modern medicine?

Why woudl we want to spread people out equal distances? Are you saying that 30% of the land is a lot? You're on about population control right? Is the number of humans constantly growing or not? If in fact it is constantly growing (which it is) and humans are findigng more and mroe ways to stay alive longer (which we are), and as there are more humans each year and that gives rise to a greater number of people having kids, then it would be logical to say that the human population grows exponentially and there is indeed a cause for concern regarding over population.

Also what are you talking about with this redistribution of wealth?

Gay people CANNOT chose to be gay.
Yes, they can, they are influenced by our sex-crazed society into choosing a disgusting lifestyle, and it is accepting people like you who help brew it

[QUOTE=Freonenia]Any one who doubts gayness is natural I have a video of two male donkeys screwing each other silly, and they mate it very clear they both know each other are male...[QUOTE]
Why the fuck do you have a video of this?

Why the fuck do you have a video of this?
A very good question, but one that I don't think either of us want an answer to. =S

Yes, they can, they are influenced by our sex-crazed society into choosing a disgusting lifestyle, and it is accepting people like you who help brew it

Hey UNA. How is our society sex-crazed then?

Yes, they can, they are influenced by our sex-crazed society into choosing a disgusting lifestyle, and it is accepting people like you who help brew it


Oh, brilliant, insult the person because they say something you don't like.

Sex-crazed society? Maybe. Probably. Possibly. Gay Sex-crazed society? Umm... take a look at American television, and point out which channels and when you see gay sex or the promotion, desensitization, or indifference to thereof. With the exception of MTV, you'll never see it.

If anything, America culture influences young people to become promiscuous heterosexuals. Evidence? The OC, Laguna Beach, Desperate Housewives... the list goes on.

Okay, now we've got the "disgusting lifestlye." I'll let you in a little secret: not all gay people are hairy men with mustaches that wear black leather biker outfits and grease their arms up to the elbow. Chances are, the guy you buy bread from is gay, and you'd never even know it.

There are normal people in every minority group. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

Well then, it shoudl be no problem for you to find the link to this information if you are in fact no lying.

75 isnt a logn life span? Tell me, what was the human life span before modern medicine?

Why woudl we want to spread people out equal distances? Are you saying that 30% of the land is a lot? You're on about population control right? Is the number of humans constantly growing or not? If in fact it is constantly growing (which it is) and humans are findigng more and mroe ways to stay alive longer (which we are), and as there are more humans each year and that gives rise to a greater number of people having kids, then it would be logical to say that the human population grows exponentially and there is indeed a cause for concern regarding over population.

Also what are you talking about with this redistribution of wealth?

let's see, where to start... well, why would we spread people over equal distances? Maybe to answer your dumbass statement that the Earth is overpopulated! Staying alive longer is a bad thing? I sure wouldn't fucking mind living for a century or more! Oh and, yes, the population is increasing exponentially, but the purpose of the even-space and 30 percent land lefter analogy is that WE AREN'T OVERPOPULATED YET! Maybe in a couple decades or something, but right now, we're cool homos, we don't need your "crowd control" we still have the population in line. By then, I hope to have control of the world, so I can get rid of you...

P.S (30% IS ALOTof land in case you failed 4th grade math, ESPECIALLY if it's LEFT OVER)

listen, this whole arguement has nothing to do with wether homosexuality is natural or not (and it is, i saw a pair of homosexual penguins on the telly, very intresting.). gay people should have the chance to be married, by all means. to say that it goes against the idea of a "holy marriage" between a man and woman and that god wouldnt allow that kinda homosexual jazz go down is total plop. heres the bottom line- GAY PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS ANYONE. to say that gay people shouldnt be married is no different than saying black people shouldnt be able to get married.

oh and I read the statistics for my first post awhile ago (less than a month though, I think it was in econ class.) But I have NO intention of digging through my e-mails archives to find it, especially not fo a bunch of fags.

let's see, where to start... well, why would we spread people over equal distances? Maybe to answer your dumbass statement that the Earth is overpopulated! Staying alive longer is a bad thing? I sure wouldn't fucking mind living for a century or more! Oh and, yes, the population is increasing exponentially, but the purpose of the even-space and 30 percent land lefter analogy is that WE AREN'T OVERPOPULATED YET! Maybe in a couple decades or something, but right now, we're cool homos, we don't need your "crowd control" we still have the population in line. By then, I hope to have control of the world, so I can get rid of you...

P.S (30% IS ALOTof land in case you failed 4th grade math, ESPECIALLY if it's LEFT OVER)

Are you stupid? The Earth just doesn't have 20% of unused land- it's all good for something, or being used. Just because people don't live on it doesn't mean it's not used.

if you spread all the people out evenly, there would be no space for farmland, mines, factories, etc. It'd be all full of people. We have skyscrapers and housing complexes for a reason, and that's to keep people in as small a place as possible in order to utilize as much of the productive land as possible.

And, where the hell are you going with the overpopulation thing? You are literally arguing that "no, we're not overpopulated now, but we will be!" Well, no shit. Exponential growth is immense. And, if 10% of the population is homosexual, and that 10% grows exponentially, then there's going to be even more gay people!

let's see, where to start... well, why would we spread people over equal distances? Maybe to answer your dumbass statement that the Earth is overpopulated! Staying alive longer is a bad thing? I sure wouldn't fucking mind living for a century or more! Oh and, yes, the population is increasing exponentially, but the purpose of the even-space and 30 percent land lefter analogy is that WE AREN'T OVERPOPULATED YET! Maybe in a couple decades or something, but right now, we're cool homos, we don't need your "crowd control" we still have the population in line. By then, I hope to have control of the world, so I can get rid of you...

P.S (30% IS ALOTof land in case you failed 4th grade math, ESPECIALLY if it's LEFT OVER)


lol seeing as how you are arguing that I said thigns that I never actually said, it seems pointless to even answer you. Especially since you probably aren't goign to be around for very long. I'd show you where to find the TOS but I really dont want you expanding your lifespan on NS since we already have enough trolls that arent here to discuss like rational human beings, but rather to just fan the flames of hate.

Anyway... I challenge you to find a statement in this thread where I claimed that the Earth is currently over populated. How about where I said that living longer was a bad thing? I'll wait (forever).

lol oh yeah on that %30 of land that is left over... is that in Antarctica? on mount kilamanjaro? the sahara desert? All of these places I would be happy to send you to live.

and you are going to get rid of me because...:confused: errr I have a different opinion than you? Come and get it tuff guy.

Ok, I'd rather not waste any more energy on a piece of work like you.

I'm sure there are others here who will be having a lot of fun with your crackpot "facts"

Are you stupid? The Earth just doesn't have 20% of unused land- it's all good for something, or being used. Just because people don't live on it doesn't mean it's not used.

if you spread all the people out evenly, there would be no space for farmland, mines, factories, etc. It'd be all full of people. We have skyscrapers and housing complexes for a reason, and that's to keep people in as small a place as possible in order to utilize as much of the productive land as possible.

And, where the hell are you going with the overpopulation thing? You are literally arguing that "no, we're not overpopulated now, but we will be!" Well, no shit. Exponential growth is immense. And, if 10% of the population is homosexual, and that 10% grows exponentially, then there's going to be even more gay people!
No no, you don't understand, this is WITH all these things factored in. Some guy in his university statistics class compiled all this info and found that all the people in the Eath could have proper housing and food from the land being used to produce, and WE'D STILL HAVE 30% of our land left (it was actuall between 26-30 percent.) And I'm not arguing against that overpopulated now, but will be. Some other person said that homosexuality was a form of controling the population. I simply put that we don't need you "help." We are fine. And WHEN the populatio does get out of control, we can load all the homos into sinister black vans, then disappear them (line from Catch-22)
say,
I oughtta make that into a nationstates issue...

If one stops and think about it for a minute, homosexuality is nature's form of population control. If all humans were attracted to the opposite sex, we'd have an even bigger population control problem. Homosexuality exists because nature needs a form of defense again human reproduction, since we have long life spans.

"...have an even BIGGER population problem..."
and
"...nature NEEDS a form of DEFENSE AGAINST human reproduction, since we have long life spans...

Let me ask you, why would we need to defend against something good? And if it is not good it is obviously bad. As for the population problem you just said we had one up in the quote. If we don't have one, how could we have an even bigger problem? You, through the use of indirect concluding or poor word choice (not sure which) stated that WE HAVE AN OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM and that LONG LIFESPANS ARE BAD.

lol seeing as how you are arguing that I said thigns that I never actually said, it seems pointless to even answer you. Especially since you probably aren't goign to be around for very long. I'd show you where to find the TOS but I really dont want you expanding your lifespan on NS since we already have enough trolls that arent here to discuss like rational human beings, but rather to just fan the flames of hate.

Anyway... I challenge you to find a statement in this thread where I claimed that the Earth is currently over populated. How about where I said that living longer was a bad thing? I'll wait (forever).

lol oh yeah on that %30 of land that is left over... is that in Antarctica? on mount kilamanjaro? the sahara desert? All of these places I would be happy to send you to live.

and you are going to get rid of me because...:confused: errr I have a different opinion than you? Come and get it tuff guy.

Ok, I'd rather not waste any more energy on a piece of work like you.

I'm sure there are others here who will be having a lot of fun with your crackpot "facts"
Im not fannin g "flames of hate" just as much as you're not fanning flames of faggotry. In my eyes, I'm discussing, in your eyes, you're discussing. You don't like my arguement about homosexuals, well I don't like yours? And I shouldn't have to, just as you don't have to like mine. If I statrted pissing and moaning about everything that someone says against my point of view (like others) I would soon where out my keyboard.

Its normality, end of story.

I'm sorry to lower the inteligence level of this conversation, but Righteous Reclamation, you're anything but righteous, you're a moron.
You have plainly stated your desire to wipe out the homosexual population, to leave space for heterosexuals.
Y'know what? Fuck it, they can have my space, in fact, I'll share it with them, since it would make you cringe to see homo- and heterosexual room-mates.
I don't think you will be a presence on this forum much longer, considering you endorse genocide.

Your argument is -not- free speech, it's discrimination.
Complete blindness and inability to accept others.

[QUOTE=Freonenia]Any one who doubts gayness is natural I have a video of two male donkeys screwing each other silly, and they mate it very clear they both know each other are male...[QUOTE]
Why the fuck do you have a video of this?


Because I was working at a racing tract and there was an argument about gayness and nature they made a bet and subsequently lost it, and due to various shuffling about my server systems it has lurked amongst my HDs (Yes plural as in many computers) and plus its kinda hot once ya get used to it ;)

that IS what you wanted to hear I'm willing to bet.

Donkey sex?! :eek:

If being gay is unnatural because some people seem to think gay people can't procreate (even though they can), does that mean straight people like me who don't want to have kids, or those who are infertile are also heading towards a dead end? Does that mean we are unnatural and have some sort of disorder?

lol

Hey you can't beat the deal, I made 50 off that bet, and it was priceless watching the idiot squirm, I find the donkeys more cute then erotic, but then again I know plenty of engineers and such who find the donkeys very desirable, I grew up in and around nature, it is normal as breathing how ever christianity goes against normal at every turn they total pervert them selves to follow a defective ideology. If they think they are some how better I want to watch one preach to a couple male lions see how far that gets them, we are and all ways will be equal to any other animal (Well actually inferior as most can walk right after birth). That is the interesting thing, when you actually see that you are in every way connected to nature you're happier more content.

Either case when it comes to idiots like whats his face saying he'd like to round up gays and such well, I can build bigger weapons so the day that happens will be the day he eats AMEX propelled by Nitrocellulose. Thoughs idiots seem to forget some of the gays, or bi's happen to be in the military or weapon designers or combat specialists. So if the bigot dares he can explain it to the stalk of my AK-47 ( I wuves the Kalashnikov)

So you think being gay is a choice? In that case, try jerking off to some gay porn. If you can't get it up then it's not a choice. If you can, congratulations, you're gay.

What about people in prison who are raped gay?

Like Beecher from OZ?

Personally, I think that everyone in this world deserves to have someone that they love and care for more than anything else. And if that person happens to be of the same sex, so be it.

I'm a straight conservative Protestant, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. I would not like to witness or partake in it, but if others do, then no skin off my back.

Its normality, end of story.

It's not normality.

It's a deviation from normality.

However that doesn't make it wrong or give people the right to stop consenting adults from doing as they please with their own bodies.

If being gay is unnatural because some people seem to think gay people can't procreate (even though they can), does that mean straight people like me who don't want to have kids, or those who are infertile are also heading towards a dead end? Does that mean we are unnatural and have some sort of disorder?

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction.

Your body compells you to reproduce, that's why you get the urge to fuck.

Anyone who isn't having sex to reproduce, is in a sense cheating the system.


But let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You know, i can accept that answer, my problem is that so many people who are against same-sex marriages because of the procreation argument completely ignore it for straight people who don't want to conceive or can't. By their logic, we should be just as bad. I simply want them to be consistent.

It's not normality.

It's a deviation from normality.

However that doesn't make it wrong or give people the right to stop consenting adults from doing as they please with their own bodies.

You don't know anything about normal.

You don't know anything about normal.

Is that like a bumper sticker or something?

You know, i can accept that answer, my problem is that so many people who are against same-sex marriages because of the procreation argument completely ignore it for straight people who don't want to conceive or can't. By their logic, we should be just as bad. I simply want them to be consistent.

The only thing that will change those people is time.

Is that like a bumper sticker or something?

No Einstein, I'm saying you should go suck a pickle.

I can't understand how an individual can even say for a moment that being gay is a choice when it has been proven psychologically to be something that you are born with.
If you are anti-science then I will offer an alternative to the psychological study.
Homosexuality has been prevalent through out history and dating back to our most notable civilizations ,that our point of views are developed, the Greeks and the Romans. I mean the only reason homosexuality has become immoral in the eyes of christians is because Christians emphasize the importance of the soul over the importance of sexual pleasure.
The Greeks believed that homosexuals were created when Zeus was placing testicals on what would soon become humans when along came the god of wine. The God of Wine got Zeus really waisted and when he returned to placing testicals on the human forms, he accidentally place testicals on human forms that were supposed to be women.
Of course, the instituion of marriage is really important for the purpose of stability but taking marriage literally, the only enemy to marriage is not gay marriage but divorce.

No Einstein, I'm saying you should go suck a pickle.


Are you coming on to me?

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction.

Your body compells you to reproduce, that's why you get the urge to fuck.

Anyone who isn't having sex to reproduce, is in a sense cheating the system.


But let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
So people who are incapable of having children are just "cheating the system?"

So people who are incapable of having children are just "cheating the system?"

Yup, in a wierd way.

So are people who pull out, wear a rubber, enjoy a wet sloppy BJ, etc.

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction.

Your body compells you to reproduce, that's why you get the urge to fuck.

Anyone who isn't having sex to reproduce, is in a sense cheating the system.


But let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Nope, wrong. There are species of monkeys and dolphins (for instance, I am sure this is also true of other animals) that use sex as a way of having fun/being friendly/reinforcing group bonds at times when they are not fertile and cannot reproduce. AND those animals also engage in homosexual mating. If the sole purpose of sex were reproduction, this would not be the case.

Humans likewise CAN have and get pleasure from sex at times when the woman is not in the fertile part of her cycle. There have been many studies as to why sex would be pleasurable at those times that show it has nothing to do with reproduction, but rather the strengthening of partnerships and such.

Nope, wrong. There are species of monkeys and dolphins (for instance, I am sure this is also true of other animals) that use sex as a way of having fun/being friendly/reinforcing group bonds at times when they are not fertile and cannot reproduce. AND those animals also engage in homosexual mating. If the sole purpose of sex were reproduction, this would not be the case.

Humans likewise CAN have and get pleasure from sex at times when the woman is not in the fertile part of her cycle. There have been many studies as to why sex would be pleasurable at those times that show it has nothing to do with reproduction, but rather the strengthening of partnerships and such.


Notice all the animals you listed are smart ones.

They're still responding to there biological urges.

Some animals are just smart enough to work the system.

Everybody does it.

Kind of like eating when you're not hungry.

Thee completely irrelevant things that came to my head while reading through this thread:

1. People, please stop using the word "analogy". I always read it as science studying assholes, and it makes me to Laugh Out Loud or sometimes even to almost Roll On the Floor,Laughing. Especially when the sentence its being used in is trying to be serious.

2. 30% of the Earth that isn't under water is pretty much Sahara, Siberian Tundra, Kalahari, The Desert In The Middle of Australia, Himalaja, Canadian Forests, Amazonas and Kansas. No one can seriously suggest sending people to live in those places, really.

3. Some gays have said that I'm good looking, and in lack of similar statements given by females I find it really nice to hear something like that for a change. I also know several highly intelligent people who are liberals, leftists and atheists (=highly intelligent people(yes, some of them in NS indeed :) ))... and gays. All in all, gays are cool.
Or hot, depending on your point of view. I have always thought it would be great to be a gay, too bad that I find sex between men just so utterly discusting... this is yet another proof of sexual preference not being something you can freely choose.

Yup, in a wierd way.

So are people who pull out, wear a rubber, enjoy a wet sloppy BJ, etc.

np System of A Down - Fuck The System


and that's all I have to say about that.

Notice all the animals you listed are smart ones.

They're still responding to there biological urges.

Some animals are just smart enough to work the system.

Everybody does it.

Kind of like eating when you're not hungry.
So...Any kind of sexual activity that is not for the purpose or reproduction is completely pointless. Hm. So when a person masturbates for the purpose of stress-relief and physical pleasure, they're also "cheating the system?" I'm curious.

So...Any kind of sexual activity that is not for the purpose or reproduction is completely pointless.

As far as nature is concerned, yes.


Hm. So when a person masturbates for the purpose of stress-relief and physical pleasure, they're also "cheating the system?" I'm curious.

Yes.

They're merely responding to biological urges.

Urges are urges, they must be dealt with. :eek:

So ROcka, considering the enormous number of animal species that engage in homosexual activities, don't you think it might just be possible that, whether or not it is for the purpose of procreating the species, homosexuality might just be completely normal and natural?

I'm figuring he is catholic as only they are so screwed up as to think masturbating is some how sinful, and as such the catholics are great at brain washing. Good luck to getting through to him.

PS: I just murdered apx 3million sperm and cheated the system, and made god cry. (Dam all of that and all I had to do was consciously decide to do it with no urge!)

So if it is so unnatural please explain why a dog screwed my very poor coat? I have one client whom I fear as her dog screws any thing and every thing, and that day my poor coat got it

A: The dog was horny and just wanted to get off
B: For some bazaar reason and in the absence of any pheromone it decided my coat was a bitch in heat and was trying to reproduce
C: ?

I'm figuring he is catholic as only they are so screwed up as to think masturbating is some how sinful, and as such the catholics are great at brain washing. Good luck to getting through to him.

PS: I just murdered apx 3million sperm and cheated the system, and made god cry. (Dam all of that and all I had to do was consciously decide to do it with no urge!)

So if it is so unnatural please explain why a dog screwed my very poor coat? I have one client whom I fear as her dog screws any thing and every thing, and that day my poor coat got it

A: The dog was horny and just wanted to get off
B: For some bazaar reason and in the absence of any pheromone it decided my coat was a bitch in heat and was trying to reproduce
C: ?


Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

So ROcka, considering the enormous number of animal species that engage in homosexual activities, don't you think it might just be possible that, whether or not it is for the purpose of procreating the species, homosexuality might just be completely normal and natural?

Normal and natural are two different things.

How would you define normal?

Normal to me means a majority of the population takes part in it.

So it's not normal.

But lots of things aren't normal.

Natural just means present or produced in nature, so I guess it's natural.

Normal and natural are two different things.

How would you define normal?

Normal to me means a majority of the population takes part in it.

So it's not normal.

But lots of things aren't normal.

Natural just means present or produced in nature, so I guess it's natural.
The majority of the population all taking part in sex would be called an orgy, and I don't think that kind of thing is normal.

We all have studied it and think both of your opinions are retarded.
"We" = you and your invisible friends? Those must be some good painkillers the dentist gave you. :p

Well, I'm a regular, blue collar guy. Regular guys figure that either you suck cock or you don't. Bisexual is just gay with more female friends.

Couldn't that same standard apply in the opposite, either one has sex with men or doesn't... and a bisexual is just a heterosexual with more male friends?

Sorry, had to throw that one

Dear Big Gay Thread Starter,

I recently heard a Christian Conservative say that if we (as a country) give equal rights to gays, then whats to stop us from releasing all the murderers and thieves from jail and letting them have their way with us and our property? They also pondered that allowing gay marriage was akin to full blown communism and marrying toasters. This guy sounds really smart to me and I had nothing to counter him with because of his massive intellect, so he changed my mind, but I am giving you the chance to change it back.

Aren't gays really just violent atheistic criminals out to destroy America and eventually the world while they have their way with our sons, daughters and family pets, rather than the loving, happy, fasihion conscious average American citizen that my former gay friends always seemed to be on the outside.

Sincerely,
Dimwitted Stooge

Yes, it's ok... I've put that aluminum foil over my windows to protect myself from the mind-control rays of the evil-gay-agenda's orbiting satelites...

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes

So, by your logic, that it is a disorder... Wouldn't you logically want to support their right to marriage, given that through such they are less likely to end up into heterosexual pairings and thus be less likely to pass down said disorders to their further generations? Maybe the ever growing population of homosexuals of late is the fact that so many are forced into playing as heterosexuals, in such relationships, thus secretly sending these deformities into further generations...

Or maybe you're just a whack-job with an agenda to attempt to control the personal lives of others.

Well, I'm a regular, blue collar guy. Regular guys figure that either you suck cock or you don't. Bisexual is just gay with more female friends.

Couldn't that same standard apply in the opposite, either one has sex with men or doesn't... and a bisexual is just a heterosexual with more male friends?

Sorry, had to throw that one

Well, if you are going there... what about bisexual WOMEN? :p

hey, i'm not personally homophobic, i have gay friends ya de ya de da, but if being gay is something you cant help, perhaps being repulsed by men eho leike cock is also?

Well I'm repulsed by anal-sex in general... That does not mean I demand no one do it, or necessarily care if other people do so with one another.

Notice all the animals you listed are smart ones.

They're still responding to there biological urges.

Some animals are just smart enough to work the system.

Everybody does it.

Kind of like eating when you're not hungry.

Smart enough to work the system? What does that mean?

My point (which you seem to have ignored) was that scientific studies have shown that these animals use sex for reasons other than reproduction.

The majority of the population all taking part in sex would be called an orgy, and I don't think that kind of thing is normal.

But it would be fun! But if a majority of the population did do that, such an orgy would be normal, and no one would need excuses the next day for coming to work late, since everyone else was late too...

Love is love is love is love is love! :eek:

You can't top that!

[. . .] the gay person wants to turn other people gay [. . .]

WRONG.

{giggles} oh now I can think of a LOT of hot guys I'd love to turn gay-- if not for the sex than for the conversion points and the promise of a nifty toaster oven :D Unfortunately it remains wishful thinking.

There is no such thing a a "Gay agenda."

Sorry, guilty again. My gay agenda book actually does reveal hints about a 'gay agenda' conspiracy...

Mon-
(whole day scratched out with a big grumpy-face, Mondays suck)

Tues-
0700 thru 1000: sleep in
1000-1030: brunch
1030 thru 1200: overthrow heterosexism to make the world a freer, better place.
1200-1300: lunch
1300-1330: Kill whitey! (note to self: figure out a way to do this without killing your dumb white-ass self)
1330-1900: surf internet for pics of hot guys
1900-2100: coffee with my godless sodomite friends :)
2100-2330: more internet before bed

Wed-
0700 thru 1100: sleep in
1100-1130: check to make sure Whitey's still dead
1130-1300: lunch
1300-1400: crush any remaining vestiges of heterosexism, condescending paternalism
1400-1500: see what I can do about other -isms: racism (snap to it, you white devil!); sexism (you might not 'want' 'em, but your fates are inexorably linked!); ageism (you aren't getting any younger, you're probably already 'too old' for the hot guy that works at Mmmuffins in the mall)

Thurs-
0700 thru 2330: have the bf over and sin like there's no tomorrow

Sat-
All Day: road-trip to Kansas to sabotage church-goers' cars

Sun-
All Day: deny conventional dogmatic interpretation of divinity


Two guys having sex in an apartment in New York doesn't cause car troubles for churchgoers in Kansas, somehow making gay people responsible for the "War on Christianity."

Crap, I've said too much!

Normal and natural are two different things.

How would you define normal?

Normal to me means a majority of the population takes part in it.

So it's not normal.

But lots of things aren't normal.

Natural just means present or produced in nature, so I guess it's natural.
So you admit that it's natural, and you're defining "normal" simply as what the majority of people do. If you happen to engage in activites that aren't "normal" by your definition, does that mean you should be treated with comtempt by the majority and should have your rights taken away?

Smart enough to work the system? What does that mean?

My point (which you seem to have ignored) was that scientific studies have shown that these animals use sex for reasons other than reproduction.


It means that they figured out sex feels good and they can do it when they want, not just when they're in heat.


I'd be interested to see if these animals start doing it before or after they get an erection and what animals specifically.

Also what about lesbian sex, do animals have lesbian sex?

Do any of the studies you've read specify this?

Anyway, I stand by my point that the primary function of sex is reproduction.

That doesn't make non-reproductive sex wrong.

Also what about lesbian sex, do animals have lesbian sex?

Do any of the studies you've read specify this?

Anyway, I stand by my point that the primary function of sex is reproduction.

That doesn't make non-reproductive sex wrong.

Do you not have google or something? Some bovine females tend to mount each other. In addition:

Not all female animals are quite so repressed, however. Among kob antelope we find an example of females who are not only highly sexed but strongly lesbian as well. Living in all-female herds, kob females interact only marginally with males for the purpose of insemination. Most of the time, the females busily engage in courtship displays and/or mounting with other females, with their lesbian mounting mimicking the heterosexual mounting done by males. Though there can be no actual penetration to show that "real" sex is taking place, it is interesting to note that at least part of the time the mounting female imitates the behavior that mounting males display at orgasm: that is, she gives a single, culminating deep thrust.

Additionally, after dismounting her lover, the female kob is likely to lick her partner's vulva and udder while the recipient spreads her back legs and arches her back and neck, signaling the throes of intense sensation and probably pleasure.

Female apes finger-fuck each other, rub their clits together, and lick each other's labia.

The function of sex is orgasm. Animals dont have an instinct to procreate, its an instinct to have an orgasm. If it wasnt about the orgasm, why does it feel so good? Because if it didnt feel good, nothing would do it.

And finally, in a pluralistic society, it is ridiculous to assume that because one religion says something is bad, that is suddenly true for everyone. Gayness, as I said, does not spread like dandelions and mice, and doesn't really affect everonye. Two guys having sex in an apartment in New York doesn't cause car troubles for churchgoers in Kansas, somehow making gay people responsible for the "War on Christianity."

Now, we may discuss.

This entire "discussion" truely offers nothing new in the way of material, and is beating a dead horse. As to the question of "one religion" being against it... to my knowledge at the very least the top 4 religions accounting for over 5 billion people worldwide oppose homosexuality...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This entire "discussion" truely offers nothing new in the way of material, and is beat a dead horse. As to the question of "one religion" being against it... to my knowledge at the very least the top 4 religions accounting for over 5 billion people worldwide oppose homosexuality...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Secular/Nonreligious/Atheist at number 3 accepts it.

Secular/Nonreligious/Atheist at number 3 accepts it.

Hardly representative of a majority, or even a truely significant viewpoint isn't it... 1.1 billion of a global population of 6 billion +.

So when u say just "one" religion.. really you should say every major religion... representing an overwhelming majority of the global population... what importance this holds I leave to you.. but dont misconstrue facts.

(and i realize not every member of those religions will take the same stance.. yet they still represent a super majority)

[Edit]: to cement this postion of the prevalence of religion... 76% of Americans in a 2001 poll classified themselves as Christian. The one religion refered to in the United still represents a vast majority of the population.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Hardly representative of a majority, or even a truely significant viewpoint isn't it... 1.1 billion of a global population of 6 billion +.

So when u say just "one" religion.. really you should say every major religion... representing an overwhelming majority of the global population... what importance this holds I leave to you.. but dont misconstrue facts.

(and i realize not every member of those religions will take the same stance.. yet they still represent a super majority)

Times are changing.

Times are changing.

As you suggest they are in fact changing, this still makes the comments of the orginal poster and the sentiment of most ppl on this forum inacurate at best. Religion remains the overiding influence globally... The feelings of secularists are still largely the minority and are not reflective of a wider public viewpoint.

(sadly this is reflected in states who have pass measures banning gay marriage vs approving it)

As you suggest they are in fact changing, this still makes the comments of the orginal poster and the sentiment of most ppl on this forum inacurate at best. Religion remains the overiding influence globally... The feelings of secularists are still largely the minority and are not reflective of a wider public viewpoint.

(sadly this is reflected in states who have pass measures banning gay marriage vs approving it)

The basis for people being against gay marriage is not religion. These people just dont like gays. Plain and simple. They play the religion card because they dont want to seem like the hateful and ignorant people that they are. If they were so adamant about their religious values, they would actually follow the teachings of their religion. ALL of them.

The basis for people being against gay marriage is not religion. These people just dont like gays. Plain and simple. They play the religion card because they dont want to seem like the hateful and ignorant people that they are. If they were so adamant about their religious values, they would actually follow the teachings of their religion. ALL of them.

How can you separate Religion from the entire affair ? Gay marriage is a dirrect affront to Religion itself, since marriage is seen as a devine sacrement under god.. and indisolvable oath if you will. Really religion plays an intergral part of that opposition movement, as it gives spiritual justification to their position.

How can you separate Religion from the entire affair ? Gay marriage is a dirrect affront to Religion itself, since marriage is seen as a devine sacrement under god.. and indisolvable oath if you will. Really religion plays an intergral part of that opposition movement, as it gives spiritual justification to their position.

That's assuming that you follow the Catholic/Episcopalian views of the sacraments, where marriage is one of the sacraments. Religion SHOULD be separated from the affiar, because it doesn't allow for the best possible outcome.

Also, those statistics shown are slightly misleading. Hinduism does not oppose homosexuality at all- however, as a result of British rule from 1830-onward, many Western values were imposed on the Indian people and they became indoctrinated against some of their own traditions. Homosexuality was often encouraged in some areas, because it was seen as a "third sex" and something godly. The current feelings that run against homosexuality itself are not religiously based, but the holdovers from British colonial rule.
Now, here's a question: What makes their idea of godliness any less holy than ours?

How can you separate Religion from the entire affair ? Gay marriage is a dirrect affront to Religion itself, since marriage is seen as a devine sacrement under god.. and indisolvable oath if you will. Really religion plays an intergral part of that opposition movement, as it gives spiritual justification to their position.

Yes. Our nation is not religious. These people use religion to justify their hate. Some religions allow same sex marriages, and by banning them you are preventing that precious religious freedom that these christians complain about somehow not having.

That's assuming that you follow the Catholic/Episcopalian views of the sacraments, where marriage is one of the sacraments. Religion SHOULD be separated from the affiar, because it doesn't allow for the best possible outcome.

Also, those statistics shown are slightly misleading. Hinduism does not oppose homosexuality at all- however, as a result of British rule from 1830-onward, many Western values were imposed on the Indian people and they became indoctrinated against some of their own traditions. Homosexuality was often encouraged in some areas, because it was seen as a "third sex" and something godly. The current feelings that run against homosexuality itself are not religiously based, but the holdovers from British colonial rule.
Now, here's a question: What makes their idea of godliness any less holy than ours?

Do you have any sources to support these claims.. becuase this is not the case which Ive heard... rather its quite a contested issue, where different contexts and texts themselves actually may stand against homosexuality in hinduism >.>

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm

This entire "discussion" truely offers nothing new in the way of material, and is beating a dead horse. As to the question of "one religion" being against it... to my knowledge at the very least the top 4 religions accounting for over 5 billion people worldwide oppose homosexuality...

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Se above post for more.


This actually doesn't say much at all. If you poll people about their religion, they'll likely put either the religion they were raised in, or the religion they are currently involved in. It doesn't take into account how fervent they are in their beliefes. For example, many people would identify as Catholics because they were raised as such, but would rarely go to church and make fun of the Pope on a regular basis.

Secondly, as I've already said Hinduism isn't an anti-gay religion at all above, I'll take on everything else. Christianity and Islam are quite generally anti-gay. That's not an argument. Atheism and Agnoticism aren't religions, so they don't really count, and anyway, most of the people in that group don't give a flying fuck about gays anyway.

Primal indigenous religions go either way. In many pacific religions, homosexuality is accepted. In the Navajo traditions, it's encouraged amon medicine men. Many native religions are either pro- or anti- or simply neutral on the subject.

Buddhism encourages it in most cases, especially Japan, southeast Asia, and some parts of China.

Traditional Chinese religion is mixed.

Jews and Sikhs are too small to even really count, and the"Other" (Wiccans, Neodruids, etc.) are generally accepting.

So, at most, I would say that the top two religions are opposed to Homosexuality. However, if you look at the numbers analytically (how often you go to church, what your denomination is, etc.) you'll find that they are actually in the minority in terms of practical dogma.

Yes. Our nation is not religious. These people use religion to justify their hate. Some religions allow same sex marriages, and by banning them you are preventing that precious religious freedom that these christians complain about somehow not having.

our nation is not religious ye 70+% of americans idenitfy themselves as Christians ?

And any church may marry who they wish... those individuals however, (given seperation of Chruch and state) are not automatically eligibable for a marriage lisence (legal document). Who may attain such a license is defined by the people of that state in their state constitution.

Do you not have google or something? Some bovine females tend to mount each other. In addition:

Nobody "has" google.

It's not a program.

It's a website, you visit it.

Normally in a debate, the person making a point provides proof of that point.

On top of that I wasn't even asking for proof, I was asking what articles he was refering to because I wanted to see if this only occurs with mammals.



The function of sex is orgasm. Animals dont have an instinct to procreate, its an instinct to have an orgasm. If it wasnt about the orgasm, why does it feel so good? Because if it didnt feel good, nothing would do it.

No the primary function of sex is procreation.

Like the primary function of eating is survival.

The orgasm is what compels you to procreate, like hunger compels you to eat.

That's why it feels good, and that's why you leave a big sticky mess after.

We are merely slaves to our own bodies.

Se above post for more.


This actually doesn't say much at all. If you poll people about their religion, they'll likely put either the religion they were raised in, or the religion they are currently involved in. It doesn't take into account how fervent they are in their beliefes. For example, many people would identify as Catholics because they were raised as such, but would rarely go to church and make fun of the Pope on a regular basis.

Secondly, as I've already said Hinduism isn't an anti-gay religion at all above, I'll take on everything else. Christianity and Islam are quite generally anti-gay. That's not an argument. Atheism and Agnoticism aren't religions, so they don't really count, and anyway, most of the people in that group don't give a flying fuck about gays anyway.

Primal indigenous religions go either way. In many pacific religions, homosexuality is accepted. In the Navajo traditions, it's encouraged amon medicine men. Many native religions are either pro- or anti- or simply neutral on the subject.

Buddhism encourages it in most cases, especially Japan, southeast Asia, and some parts of China.

Traditional Chinese religion is mixed.

Jews and Sikhs are too small to even really count, and the"Other" (Wiccans, Neodruids, etc.) are generally accepting.

So, at most, I would say that the top two religions are opposed to Homosexuality. However, if you look at the numbers analytically (how often you go to church, what your denomination is, etc.) you'll find that they are actually in the minority in terms of practical dogma.

this argument is assuming those people not going to church or not spiritually active do not hold to the basic morals taught by those religions.. This is irrisponsible at best. Just because you do not regularly attend church is not to say you will then be in favor of gay marriage, or even more open to it. Chances are, given that you identify yourself as that religion, you have been educated in it.. and as such are more likely to identify with its core belifs..

Aside from this technical point... your point is only taking into account western sentiments.. all along the 3rd world religious doctrine is more engrained and more widely practiced. As well these regions are were the major religions show their fastest growth [and have the largest populations]. I would say, despite the points you make... the sentiments of religious influence would still leave a super majority against your postion

[Edit]: and i belive my previous supporting article casts some doubt on your position about Hindu belif on homosexuality....

Well, all I can say in the matter is that I have male friends who are gay and bisexual, female friends who are gay and bisexual, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

Some of the male friends of mine even, in seemingly more as a joking way tend to "put the moves" on me at times. Even though the thought of fornicating with a man creeps me out, I don't go all anti-gay because of it.

Infact, Bush's new attempt to make an ammendment against gay marriage is actually offensive to be because I have so many friends with unconventional sexualities. I swear, he is aiming at going down in history as something special, and since he lost by default to everything but worst president, he's aiming for that one.

Oh, and before someone goes on at me about hating Bush, I voted for him over Kerry, I just don't like his recent war decisions, his "attempts" at easing gas prices, this, and I am sure you know the long list of other problems.

I don't regret voting for him either, of the two idiots we had (main canidates), he was slightly less an idiot in my eyes.

With that being said, my rice is done and I'm going to work, so peace.

To Gui, and to everyone else who hasn't read the whole thread before posting, here's a few facts that will stop you looking like a bigot and a moron, only a bigot-

1) The United States of America was created as a secular (non-religious) country so there was less chance of discrimination.

2) I'm not an expert, quite the opposite in fact, but I believe that the First Amendment states something of the lines of "Unalienable rights" for all humans.

3) The sanctity of marriage no longer exists. It is a ghost. The divorce rates are rocketing, spousal abuse is on the increase and marriage by religion and marriage by state are two different things. Gay marriage is the fight to have equal civil rights, not necessarily grace in your God's eyes.

4) If you are religious, and part of this argument, read leviticus. If you believe homosexuality is a heresy, do you also think that shellfish, working on a sunday or saturday, shaving and getting a tattoo is a heresy?

Don't be a moron, get a clue before you start with the fascism.
It is part of the American dream to have freedom and equal rights without regard to race, religion, gender, age or preferance.

Christianity does not have the moral high ground, in fact, it has a lot of bloody history to answer for and you're doing it no good.

Se above post for more.

Buddhism encourages it in most cases, especially Japan, southeast Asia, and some parts of China.

On the contrary, again in alignment with my position, Buddhism, like Hinduism is ATBEST indifferent, at worst opposed

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm

Budda never explicitly outlined belif on homosexuality but spoke in generalities... some forms of Buddism could be interpreted to be "tolerant" of the practice, however, the formost figure in the religion, the Dali Lama, himself has labeled it as "sexual misconduct" in terms of Buddism.

Many women, gays and lesbians have been attracted to Buddhism because of its relative lack of misogyny and homophobia, when compared to some other religions. But others report "virulently anti-gay sentiments and teachings from religious teachers in Tibetan and other Buddhist" schools.
So it all depends on the teacher...

I'd like to point out that some sects of Christianity etc don't condemn homosexuality. CofE, for a start.

To Gui, and to everyone else who hasn't read the whole thread before posting, here's a few facts that will stop you looking like a bigot and a moron, only a bigot-

1) The United States of America was created as a secular (non-religious) country so there was less chance of discrimination.

2) I'm not an expert, quite the opposite in fact, but I believe that the First Amendment states something of the lines of "Unalienable rights" for all humans.

3) The sanctity of marriage no longer exists. It is a ghost. The divorce rates are rocketing, spousal abuse is on the increase and marriage by religion and marriage by state are two different things. Gay marriage is the fight to have equal civil rights, not necessarily grace in your God's eyes.

4) If you are religious, and part of this argument, read leviticus. If you believe homosexuality is a heresy, do you also think that shellfish, working on a sunday or saturday, shaving and getting a tattoo is a heresy?

Don't be a moron, get a clue before you start with the fascism.
It is part of the American dream to have freedom and equal rights without regard to race, religion, gender, age or preferance.

Christianity does not have the moral high ground, in fact, it has a lot of bloody history to answer for and you're doing it no good.

Yes well, all of your position again are quite old and disputable.. my only role in this discussion is to add some clarity to the facts [ or atleast a different viewpoint] being thrown around... I realize you like others single out Christianity aruging it does not have the moral high ground. It is my postion most major religions accounting for a super majority of the worlds population oppose homosexuality on varying degrees... And it is widely known that while most americans oppose a constitutional ban on gay marriage, as well they are not nessesarly open to it being legalized, and would rather it be determined on a state by state level.

Nobody "has" google.

It's not a program.

It's a website, you visit it.

Normally in a debate, the person making a point provides proof of that point.

On top of that I wasn't even asking for proof, I was asking what articles he was refering to because I wanted to see if this only occurs with mammals.

It occurs mostly in birds.

No the primary function of sex is procreation.

Like the primary function of eating is survival.

The orgasm is what compels you to procreate, like hunger compels you to eat.

Yes, hunger compels you to eat. The object of eating is to satisfy that hunger. An animal feels hungry, he eats. An animal is not aware of the consequences of his instinct.

our nation is not religious ye 70+% of americans idenitfy themselves as Christians ?

Theres a difference between the nation and its people. America was intended to keep religious influences out of the decision making process.

Yes well, all of your position again are quite old and disputable.. my only role in this discussion is to add some clarity to the facts [ or atleast a different viewpoint] being thrown around... I realize you like others single out Christianity aruging it does not have the moral high ground. It is my postion most major religions accounting for a super majority of the worlds population oppose homosexuality on varying degrees... And it is widely known that while most americans oppose a constitutional ban on gay marriage, as well they are not nessesarly open to it being legalized, and would rather it be determined on a state by state level.

Gui, you have not answered at all to the points I put forward, you have simply defended your position, speaking on behalf of what you believe to be true.
Do me a favour and address the points I put forward, most of all, answer to point 4.
Do you believe that all of those things, tattoos, shellfish are sins along with homosexuality?

On the contrary, again in alignment with my position, Buddhism, like Hinduism is ATBEST indifferent, at worst opposed

Buddhism, for one thing, states "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct"

Sex between two consenting committing adults is not sexual misconduct according to Buddhism.

Buddhism is most concerned with whether an action is helpful and based on good intentions. If two people share a bond of love, I would say its a good intention regardless of gender.

Theres a difference between the nation and its people. America was intended to keep religious influences out of the decision making process.

That is an obsurity at best, people are influenced by religion... and people make decisions in the decision making process.. so religion will always indirectly effect policy making!

but i will not allow myself to be pulled into this old tired argument, because at the end of the day the constitution is a document open to vast interpretation.. and it is for the Supreme court to interpret, not you or me!

im sick of all the sexually related discussions lol, i mean yeah we have to discuss things like this but theres been around 20 so far, surely we dont need anymore cant we have a discussion about something more important like the police raid for chemical weapons?

...WE AREN'T OVERPOPULATED YET!...

P.S (30% IS ALOTof land in case you failed 4th grade math, ESPECIALLY if it's LEFT OVER)
Actually, overpopulation isn't caculated by just the sheer number of people, but also by the impact that the numbers have on our non-renewable resources. And yes, they are being depleted, even with just over 6+ billion people.

30% of what? The land that is habitable but we left alone so that we don't totally destroy the earth? Does this value even include the Arctic and Antarctica? There are places that humans won't inhabit for reasons. If we spread out, we'd just die out faster.

oh and I read the statistics for my first post awhile ago (less than a month though, I think it was in econ class.) But I have NO intention of digging through my e-mails archives to find it, especially not fo a bunch of fags.
Oh, so, then if you're not digging it up, can we assume you're blowing out your ass? (Wow! What an amazing feat!)

...And WHEN the populatio does get out of control, we can load all the homos into sinister black vans, then disappear them (line from Catch-22)
Wow, you're such a racist little asshole. Why haven't you been forum-banned yet? Oh right, because I need a troll for my own personal amusement.

Let me ask you, why would we need to defend against something good? And if it is not good it is obviously bad. As for the population problem you just said we had one up in the quote. If we don't have one, how could we have an even bigger problem? You, through the use of indirect concluding or poor word choice (not sure which) stated that WE HAVE AN OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM and that LONG LIFESPANS ARE BAD.
The UN has generated reports warning us about our ever-swelling population and the corrpsonding replacement levels. The replacement levels are at times exceeding the death rates, which leads to an overpopulation issue.

Because we've become rather effective at extending our lives through medicine, the replacement rates are getting to be high in some places because of the type of social-economic phase that some developing countries are going through, in which their death rates are going down as the life spands increase, but birth rates don't drop. THis puts pressure on an already stressed system.

That is an obsurity at best, people are influenced by religion... and people make decisions in the decision making process.. so religion will always indirectly effect policy making!

No. In a nation that professes freedom so readily as ours, what influences the policy making proccess is the general well-being of the people, and that no freedom is encroached. Last time i checked, religion puts hardcore limits on freedoms.

No. In a nation that professes freedom so readily as ours, what influences the policy making proccess is the general well-being of the people, and that no freedom is encroached. Last time i checked, religion puts hardcore limits on freedoms.

You must realize, laws in of themselves are limitations on freedoms. Every law drafted is made to create structure, and acceptable behaviors the society so chooses... this is never more evident then in the freedoms we surrender in order to acheive some viable level of security. No organized government may function in a system of unfettered unencroachable freedoms.

Religion itself is just a pack of laws straped around the idea of diety... no so different then any governmental structure.. laws straped around the idea of a central government. This is why religion and government at times goes so well together.. religion is about restrain... so is law!

Your seriously talking about the United STates here ? or any government.... "general wellbeing of the people" is a farse at best. And even our government.... aswell you must realize, laws in of themselves are limitations on freedoms. Every law drafted is made to create structure, and acceptable behaviors the society so chooses... this is never more evident then in the freedoms we surrender in order to acheive some viable level of security. No organized government may function in a system of unfettered unencroachable freedoms.

Religion itself is just a pack of laws straped around the idea of diety... no so different then any governmental structure.. laws straped around the idea of a central government. This is why religion and government at times goes so well together.. religion is about restrain... so is law!

Sigh...

Murder for example. Murder is illegal because it denies someone a right to live. You have freedom to do whatever you want, the only limit is that you dont prevent someone else from this right.

Sigh...

Murder for example. Murder is illegal because it denies someone a right to live. You have freedom to do whatever you want, the only limit is that you dont prevent someone else from this right.

Education.. by law (in all 50 states) children are compelled to attend school to a certain age. Whose freedom is being denied by not attending classes, if the student so chooses ?

Education.. by law (in all 50 states) children are compelled to attend school to a certain age. Whose freedom is being denied by not attending classes, if the student so chooses ?

Uh, what? Ever hear of dropping out? Ever hear of home schooling? I mean, if the parents want their child to be a complete dumbass, fine. The child however doesnt HAVE to go to school.

Uh, what? Ever hear of dropping out? Ever hear of home schooling? I mean, if the parents want their child to be a complete dumbass, fine. The child however doesnt HAVE to go to school.

Home schooling is technically receiving an education.. sorry i should have clarified... all students are compelled to received some level of schooling.. home schooling included..
[even once you drop out if your under the state mandated age, you must attend some school or receive some type of schooling (eg. home schooling)]

But then, if ur going to be so picky, since u used murder... Suicide, as I understand it, is still illegal throughout the Union. Whose freedoms are being encrouaged upon

Oh please, Organisms dont evolve into a dead end and thats what homosexuality is a dead end. When you are homosexual you have almost no chance to pass on your genes unless you are a woman and go to a sperm bank. Homosexuality is just a cry for attention or a mental disorder depending on the case IT IS NOT NATURAL like I said Animals do NOT evolve into dead ends it dosent work like that. The point of life is the continuation of your genes this can only be done by a heterosexual relationship That means that being gay goes against the base instict of any animal therefore it must be labeled as a mental disorder or just a pitiful cry for attention "oh Iam gay I need rights too!" gays already have rights but saying its natural or you dont pick to be gay is bullshit.

First of all, I would like to admit that I have read only the first two or three pages of this post, but I found this oppurtounity way too inviting to pass up.

Second, has anybody else noticed how every anti-gay comment on the first few pages has had some major punctuation, grammar, and spelling problems, while most of the pro-equal rights posts hae correct grammar and spelling?

Third (and finally on the point), I would like to point out that nobody would choose to be attacked by the rest of the population. It is a riduculous notion that falls apart as soon as any thought is put into it. Also, even in his "natural" argument, cases of homosexuality have been seen in animals, who are not sentient, and thus could not choose to be gay even if they did have the choice! How can the point be made that homosexuality is some kind of choice or mental disease limited to humans when examples of it are seen and recorded occuring outside the human race?

Education.. by law (in all 50 states) children are compelled to attend school to a certain age. Whose freedom is being denied by not attending classes, if the student so chooses ?
Minors have fewer rights because they don't pay taxes into the government, and they are financially supported by a seperate party (generally parents).

But then, if ur going to be so picky, since u used murder... Suicide, as I understand it, is still illegal throughout the Union. Whose freedoms are being encrouaged upon

I dont know anyone who has been punished for suicide. They are dead.

Third (and finally on the point), I would like to point out that nobody would choose to be attacked by the rest of the population. It is a riduculous notion that falls apart as soon as any thought is put into it. Also, even in his "natural" argument, cases of homosexuality have been seen in animals, who are not sentient, and thus could not choose to be gay even if they did have the choice! How can the point be made that homosexuality is some kind of choice or mental disease limited to humans when examples of it are seen and recorded occuring outside the human race?

Morons dont know that.

I dont know anyone who has been punished for suicide. They are dead.

Those who atempt suicide could technically be punished, those who assist are definatly punishable...

Then theres... substance abuse ? ... drugs ... both distributing to willing cliental and using them.

Those who atempt suicide could technically be punished, those who assist are definatly punishable...

Then theres... substance abuse ? ... drugs ... both distributing to willing cliental and using them.

Ive known people to attempt suicide and have not been punished.

As for drugs, I dont see that mentioned anywhere in any religion. So how does religion affect that?

Ive known people to attempt suicide and have not been punished.

As for drugs, I dont see that mentioned anywhere in any religion. So how does religion affect that?

As I said, technically they could be punished, generally they are institutionalized or receive mental help .... But those who assist them in any efforts maybe punishable with manslaughter if the suicide is a success.

we arn't talking about how religion affects these issues.. but how laws themselves are tools for restraint! Laws by definition restrain freedom as they create structure. Laws hence act the same way Religion does.. restraining personal freedoms. We are not a nation created to have unfettered unencrouable freedom, rather we have freedom within the context of law and order...

First of all, I would like to admit that I have read only the first two or three pages of this post, but I found this oppurtounity way too inviting to pass up.

Second, has anybody else noticed how every anti-gay comment on the first few pages has had some major punctuation, grammar, and spelling problems, while most of the pro-equal rights posts hae correct grammar and spelling?

Third (and finally on the point), I would like to point out that nobody would choose to be attacked by the rest of the population. It is a riduculous notion that falls apart as soon as any thought is put into it. Also, even in his "natural" argument, cases of homosexuality have been seen in animals, who are not sentient, and thus could not choose to be gay even if they did have the choice! How can the point be made that homosexuality is some kind of choice or mental disease limited to humans when examples of it are seen and recorded occuring outside the human race?

Given your spelling/grammar problems in this post, I suspect you would have been better off avoiding that subject >.> .

As I said, technically they could be punished, generally they are institutionalized or receive mental help .... But those who assist them in any efforts maybe punishable with manslaughter if the suicide is a success.

we arn't talking about how religion affects these issues.. but how laws themselves are tools for restraint! Laws by definition restrain freedom as they create structure. Laws hence act the same way Religion does.. restraining personal freedoms. We are not a nation created to have unfettered unencrouable freedom, rather we have freedom within the context of law and order...

You pretty much said that religion affects our policy making. Please explain how making the use/sale of drugs illegal was influenced by religion.

You pretty much said that religion affects our policy making. Please explain how making the use/sale of drugs illegal was influenced by religion.

... the argument ive been making was to your most irrisponsible remark that we are in a country where no freedom should be encroached upon, and that Religion produces sever limitations on freedom. Im showing you how laws themselves produce this same effect so suggesting no freedom should be limited is a farse...

As to the comment about religion effecting policy making, this seems to me a point not even worth explaining because it should be readily obviouse... People use their judgement based on their morals/ethics, and if you are a religious person, or have had a religious upbringing, those morals and ethics (what you think is right and wrong) will be immediatly influenced by that upbringing. A Catholic politican or policy maker most generally WILL NOT propose/support a law condoning suicide/assisted suicide. Hence, religion will always have an influence on policy making.

If your so adamant about drug use...
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/214/thepope.shtml
... If you recall your history, the prohibition movement was championed by the religious right... this case and the war on drugs parallel each other.

The basis for people being against gay marriage is not religion. These people just dont like gays. Plain and simple. They play the religion card because they dont want to seem like the hateful and ignorant people that they are. If they were so adamant about their religious values, they would actually follow the teachings of their religion. ALL of them.

In many cases you are correct, but not all. Generalizations are not fair, cool, or accurate, no matter who is making them. Lots of the time people do use religion as an excuse for their hate and ignorance.

That said, I know deeply religious people who support civil unions but not marriage (I disagree - seperate but equal is inherently unequal). This is because marriage, from the Roman Catholic standpoint, is a Sacrament (a physical act that brings the presence of God and grace). A priest does not marry a couple, the couple marry each other when they have vaginal intercourse. This is why Catholics are so opposed to premarital sex. Because of religious definition, homosexual couples cannot be "married" because they cannot have vaginal intercourse. (That said, the people who think this believe that legally all marriages should be called civil unions).

Of course, there are tons of flaws with the Catholic understanding.

And, of course, you are rate, people that use religion to excuse their bigotry need to start learning the important parts of their religion, like "Love thy neighbor"

this argument is assuming those people not going to church or not spiritually active do not hold to the basic morals taught by those religions.. This is irrisponsible at best. Just because you do not regularly attend church is not to say you will then be in favor of gay marriage, or even more open to it. Chances are, given that you identify yourself as that religion, you have been educated in it.. and as such are more likely to identify with its core belifs..

Simply because some one was educated in a religion does not mean they will adhere to all the teachings. This is fairly obvious, because (at least this is true for Catholics, i presume its true for other religions, as well) regular church attendance is one of the main principals.

This may be naive of me, but I like to think that, after having been educated in the core beliefs, people examine them critically, and decide wether or not they agree with it. I know lots and lots of people who were educated in Catholicism, and whether or not they agree with the "core beliefs" I couldnt tell you, but I CAN tell you that they believe the Church's stance on homosexuality is completely wrong and misguided.

In many cases you are correct, but not all. Generalizations are not fair, cool, or accurate, no matter who is making them. Lots of the time people do use religion as an excuse for their hate and ignorance.

That said, I know deeply religious people who support civil unions but not marriage (I disagree - seperate but equal is inherently unequal). This is because marriage, from the Roman Catholic standpoint, is a Sacrament (a physical act that brings the presence of God and grace). A priest does not marry a couple, the couple marry each other when they have vaginal intercourse. This is why Catholics are so opposed to premarital sex. Because of religious definition, homosexual couples cannot be "married" because they cannot have vaginal intercourse. (That said, the people who think this believe that legally all marriages should be called civil unions).

Of course, there are tons of flaws with the Catholic understanding.

And, of course, you are rate, people that use religion to excuse their bigotry need to start learning the important parts of their religion, like "Love thy neighbor"

Im actually one of those people who could accept Civil Unions rather then Marriages.. yet, I dispute the idea (in this case) that seperate but equal = unequal conditions. Providing Civil Unions are given all the same legal benifits as a marriage, why should we expect them to be anything but equal ?

Im actually one of those people who could accept Civil Unions rather then Marriages.. yet, I dispute the idea (in this case) that seperate but equal = unequal conditions. Providing Civil Unions are given all the same legal benifits as a marriage, why should we expect them to be anything but equal ?
Because its called segregation. Why should w not get marriages? The state already hands them out so why not just let it hand them out to homosexuals?

Im actually one of those people who could accept Civil Unions rather then Marriages.. yet, I dispute the idea (in this case) that seperate but equal = unequal conditions. Providing Civil Unions are given all the same legal benifits as a marriage, why should we expect them to be anything but equal ?

What you say is just about rational, but a Civil Union will always be seen as second-class to Marriage.
I believe that if the couple are religious, the union should be called a Marriage if the codes of Marriage are upkept. Codes, vows, whatever you'd like to call them.
If the couple would like to call it a Civil Union, do so.

AMEN! It's like the rumors that are spread, oh so-and-so is gay! So what? So what if they where?

Simply because some one was educated in a religion does not mean they will adhere to all the teachings. This is fairly obvious, because (at least this is true for Catholics, i presume its true for other religions, as well) regular church attendance is one of the main principals.

This may be naive of me, but I like to think that, after having been educated in the core beliefs, people examine them critically, and decide wether or not they agree with it. I know lots and lots of people who were educated in Catholicism, and whether or not they agree with the "core beliefs" I couldnt tell you, but I CAN tell you that they believe the Church's stance on homosexuality is completely wrong and misguided.

Of course, I would not speak in such certainies.. which is why I stated they are simply More LIkely to adhere to the CORE BELIFS.. clearly if they are not practicing, they will not adhere to all the teachings. As to people "crtically examining their belifs" I would say saidly this is not the norm... as its evident in the (at times) complete inability of individuals to articulate their position and support for it, espeically in specific religious matters such as homosexuality. Most of the time people will condem it, but when you inquire their own sexual history.. they themselves have fornicated ( an equally damning act). They simply fail to understand the intricacies (sp.) of their own faith.

Because its called segregation. Why should w not get marriages? The state already hands them out so why not just let it hand them out to homosexuals?


Why not make civil unions the legal aspect of marriage, meaning anyone who can legally enter a contract is able to be married, but allow churches to perform marriage ceremonies, along with non-religious groups?

That way, a church can choose not to allow a couple to be married, but that decision can be protected since the church is a private institution.

What you say is just about rational, but a Civil Union will always be seen as second-class to Marriage.

Exactly. I havent read the Brown v Board decision in a long time, but here's what I seem to recall from my Civil Rights class. The NAACP easily could have argued that seperate but unequal was unequal because of the quality of facilities, etc. However, they successfully argued that creating two distinct systems creates two unequal classes. Similarly, even if the rights were the same, which as I understand it, they frequently are not, seperating marriage of heterosexuals and civil union of homosexuals would create two unequal classes.

Please, correct me if im wrong/misrepresenting the facts

Why not make civil unions the legal aspect of marriage, meaning anyone who can legally enter a contract is able to be married, but allow churches to perform marriage ceremonies, along with non-religious groups?

That way, a church can choose not to allow a couple to be married, but that decision can be protected since the church is a private institution.

Because that would make sense.

Because that would make sense.
Yeah, this is America! We don't need any of that snooty logic or reason, thank you very much.

Exactly. I havent read the Brown v Board decision in a long time, but here's what I seem to recall from my Civil Rights class. The NAACP easily could have argued that seperate but unequal was unequal because of the quality of facilities, etc. However, they successfully argued that creating two distinct systems creates two unequal classes. Similarly, even if the rights were the same, which as I understand it, they frequently are not, seperating marriage of heterosexuals and civil union of homosexuals would create two unequal classes.

Please, correct me if im wrong/misrepresenting the facts

Yet Civil Unions are not just for homosexuals.. because heterosexuals (general secular) use them today to be married... Civil Unions are simply the non religious form of a marriage. So there is no second class citizen being made here, becuase if the rights are the same and both hetero and homosexuals use them, no differences can apply between marriage and civil union.. other then the affiliation (marriage being a union under god, civil union a union under the state)

But it would be fun! But if a majority of the population did do that, such an orgy would be normal, and no one would need excuses the next day for coming to work late, since everyone else was late too...
Only if they did it regularly. Like every second Thursday.

But don't you see, the definition of "normal" is whatever some prude decides it is on any given day. So if Rucka can sniff and say "I say gays ain't normal and I say the hell with them," then why can't I do the same to what he thinks people should be doing?

How can you separate Religion from the entire affair ? Gay marriage is a dirrect affront to Religion itself, since marriage is seen as a devine sacrement under god.. and indisolvable oath if you will. Really religion plays an intergral part of that opposition movement, as it gives spiritual justification to their position.
It's not an affront to my religion.

It's not an affront to my religion.
It probably depends on what religion you're talking about.

It probably depends on what religion you're talking about.
Gui said homosexuality is an affront to "religion." He didn't specify. So in case he meant all religions, I pointed out that it's not an affront to mine. Of course that was before I read the good argument involving statistics from adherents.com, but just in case, there is a representative of a religion that is not affronted by homosexuality on the forum. Me. :)

It probably depends on what religion you're talking about.

Well many people here are kind of not listening to the Vatican about what is "moral" these days.

Love is love is love is love is love! :eek:

You can't top that!
Love is a mixture of chemical reactions in your brain, it's in National Geographic if ya don'y believe me...
Therefore, gay peoples mixture are SEVERLY fucked up.
Oh, and to that other asshole who said something about Kalashnikov's (AK-47/57's) I'll say hi to your pansy AK from the pintle-mounted infrared camera on my ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, yes, nukes).

this argument is assuming those people not going to church or not spiritually active do not hold to the basic morals taught by those religions.. This is irrisponsible at best. Just because you do not regularly attend church is not to say you will then be in favor of gay marriage, or even more open to it. Chances are, given that you identify yourself as that religion, you have been educated in it.. and as such are more likely to identify with its core belifs..

Aside from this technical point... your point is only taking into account western sentiments.. all along the 3rd world religious doctrine is more engrained and more widely practiced. As well these regions are were the major religions show their fastest growth [and have the largest populations]. I would say, despite the points you make... the sentiments of religious influence would still leave a super majority against your postion

[Edit]: and i belive my previous supporting article casts some doubt on your position about Hindu belif on homosexuality....


If the person simply holds the morals advanced by that Church, yet you don't partake in any of the rituals or prayers, are you really a member of that religion? I can pray to Allah, but unless I abstain from alcohol, pray five times a day, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca, I'm not really a muslim.

Your point is irrelevent, since it assumes that people who hold oppose gay marriage or homosexuality oppose it on religious grounds- some just don't like the idea.

To answer a few other posts- The Dalai Lama represents a very small portion of Buddhism, the Tibetan Theravada tradition specifically. That in no way encompasses any other traditions. In Thailand, Homosexuality is looked upon as the third sex, a good alternative for Buddhist monks. In Japan, same-sex relationships between monks was extremely common for the same reason, and around 1400 or so cults of homosexuality arose.

As to Hinduism, your own article is contradictory. At best, it says that Hindu sources are not conclusive, because they tend to contradict each other. Also, my post said that in some cases homosexuality was encouraged. Check the wikipedia article on homosexuality, you'll see the same. Only the outright hostility is a modern development.

Hell, even in Islam homosexual love is sometimes accepted. It's only that you don't hear about it too often.

Im actually one of those people who could accept Civil Unions rather then Marriages.. yet, I dispute the idea (in this case) that seperate but equal = unequal conditions. Providing Civil Unions are given all the same legal benifits as a marriage, why should we expect them to be anything but equal ?
In my opinion, if we are going to block certain citizens from entering into certain kinds of legal contracts (like blocking gay people from entering a marriage contract), we have to provide some reason why doing so is ESSENTIAL for society. We can't just say, "Well, we gave you civil unions, and that's got all the same rights and shit, we just don't want to share this particular word because...well, just because."

Put it to you another way: in the last century, there were laws prohibiting black people from marrying white people (and vice versa). Do you think it would have been appropriate for us to say, "Ok, interracial couples can't get MARRIED, but they can get 'civil-unioned'"? How exactly would this differ from having segregated water fountains? "Hey, you guys get pretty much the same water fountains as we white heterosexuals, it's just that we don't want to have to share OUR water fountains with you, and we don't want you to call your fountains 'fountains.' Call them 'drinking spigots' or something."

Yes I CHOOSE to try to pass on my genes by having sex with women not men and did I ever say I dident belive in evolution? no I dident But the fundemental way evolution works is by rooting out the least likely to survive and it would seen that Being homosexual with stingly inhibit you to pass on your genes

Evolution is not an orderly process of every specimin of a given species co-operatively, consciously adopting traits that propogate the species. Evolution is all about variations (or deviations) cropping up, either at random or in response to environmental pressures to adapt. Either the variation is advantageous and has a greater chance of being passed on genetically to subsequent generations, disseminating through the population's gene pool, or it isn't advantageous and the specimin with the variation has no-better-than-average odds of passing the trait on to offspring. There is no conscious Spirit of Evolution that sits at a drawing board and says "hmm, males attempting to mate with other males... that'll never make babies!" and then crumples up the plans and throws them away.

Furthermore, before you invoke Evolution as some force that should have removed homosexuality from the gene pool by now through a process of elimination, try learning something about recessive traits! There are millions and millions of people out there, wandering blindly around with codes in their DNA that may not manifest in them, but in combination with the same (or some other compatible) code from another person can trigger that gene to be expressed in offspring. If you want to bring biology into an argument, make sure you're read-up on biology first.

And finally, "gay" doesn't mean "sterile." For hundreds if not thousands of years there have been intense social pressures on people to conform to the "man marries woman, man and woman mindlessly churn out spawn" model. That's *all* people, gay and straight. And a *lot* of gay people succumb to that pressure-- even if only temporarily-- and end up behaving counter to their inherent, natural desires, taking an opposite-sex partner and churning out spawn, the whole time wishing they were with a same-sex partner. At the same time, many gay men have paternal instincts, and many lesbians have maternal instincts, and it does sometimes happen that a gay man with the help of a women (lesbian or straight) or a lesbian with the help of a man (gay or straight) end up producing children. Not because gay men want to have sex with women or because lesbian want to have sex with men, but because a gay guy still wants to be a father, or a lesbian still wants to be a mother, or both. "Homosexual" doesn't mean we cannot produce offspring, it just means that we are not naturally desireous of the male+female action it takes to produce them. But sometimes we'll hold our noses and do it anway, out of a desire to bring some continuation of ourselves into the world.

That is not to say that being gay is a "choice." It isn't. The only "choice" involved is whether to honestly live according to one's feelings, or to succumb to social expectations and try to live out one's life as something one isn't. A proposition-- incidentally-- that I dare say the average heterosexual would find a completely unacceptable imposition. If they ever did ship us all off to an island, and Joe Heterosexual found himself shipwrecked there, he'd finally really understand the experience of gay & lesbian people because he would be under pressure to conform to the normative behaviour of his environment but it would always be at odds with his natural inclinations-- and he could not "choose" to be homosexual if he wasn't one to begin with. Even if the homo masses started calling him names, threatening his life, bombarding him with gay imagery and role-models to communicate to him that he ought to be homo, telling him he didn't have equal civil rights in their society; the most he could do would be to fake it for the sake of 'fitting in,' but it would still be a lie, not his choice. Gay people no more choose to be gay than straight people choose to be straight. There's no decision to it, it's just the way you are.

Now if you want to participate in the discussion any further, go read something (preferably something wherein the answers don't all come from voices in the sky or burning shrubbery) so that future comments can be informed by something more substantive than just your 'icked-out feelings' or your artificial 'moral beliefs'-- which, by the way, actually are a choice (or at most, an accident of circumstances [ie. your culture, your upbringing, etc.])

I don't see what the big deal is. It's just one of the subtle diferences that make us all unique. We persecuted blacks/asians/native americans years ago, and now they are considered horrible. What will future generations see this persecution of gays as?

There shouldnt be a problem with people who are different than yourself. Some people are so narrow-minded. People who say others are wrong because they look different or feel different should take a good look at themselves and think "maybe I'm the one who's different."

If the person simply holds the morals advanced by that Church, yet you don't partake in any of the rituals or prayers, are you really a member of that religion?

Does "the Church" make the religion?

I can pray to Allah, but unless I abstain from alcohol, pray five times a day, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca, I'm not really a muslim.

So you think that religions are determined by religious leaders, and not by followers?

Your point is irrelevent, since it assumes that people who hold oppose gay marriage or homosexuality oppose it on religious grounds- some just don't like the idea.

....which makes even less sense. "I don't like it so nobody should be able to do it..." Yeah, that makes lots of sense. At least the ones who try and base it in religion are claiming that God is against it - trying to place the source a little higher than, "I just think its icky."

Why not make civil unions the legal aspect of marriage, meaning anyone who can legally enter a contract is able to be married, but allow churches to perform marriage ceremonies, along with non-religious groups?

That way, a church can choose not to allow a couple to be married, but that decision can be protected since the church is a private institution.

Mostly because the legal aspects of marriage are *already* separate from the religious aspects. Most of us don't need a name change to recognize the difference between the marriage license we get from the state and the blessing granted by a religious leader.

Allowing homosexuals to legally marry would not force any churches to perform said marriages. If a church wants to perform marriages only to people who were born on Tuesdays, that is their option - and always has been. The legal aspects of marriage, however, should not be denied to any adult couple without a damn good reason.


Exactly. I havent read the Brown v Board decision in a long time, but here's what I seem to recall from my Civil Rights class. The NAACP easily could have argued that seperate but unequal was unequal because of the quality of facilities, etc. However, they successfully argued that creating two distinct systems creates two unequal classes. Similarly, even if the rights were the same, which as I understand it, they frequently are not, seperating marriage of heterosexuals and civil union of homosexuals would create two unequal classes.

Please, correct me if im wrong/misrepresenting the facts

You are absolutely correct.


Yet Civil Unions are not just for homosexuals.. because heterosexuals (general secular) use them today to be married...

In certain countries, this is true. Some countries offer civil unions and marriages - although generally only civil unions are offered to homosexual couples in such countries. This means that heterosexual couples still have access to a legal institution denied to homosexuals.

In other places, civil unions are *only* granted to homosexuals - which means that heterosexuals are denied an legal recognition granted to homosexuals and homosexuals are denied a legal recognition granted to heterosexuals.

Civil Unions are simply the non religious form of a marriage.

Incorrect. Civil marriage is already non-religious (in the US anyways). Civil unions, in every nation and state that have them instituted, are not legally equivalent to marriage - and are no more or less secular than civil marriage.

That said, I know deeply religious people who support civil unions but not marriage (I disagree - seperate but equal is inherently unequal). This is because marriage, from the Roman Catholic standpoint, is a Sacrament (a physical act that brings the presence of God and grace). A priest does not marry a couple, the couple marry each other when they have vaginal intercourse. This is why Catholics are so opposed to premarital sex. Because of religious definition, homosexual couples cannot be "married" because they cannot have vaginal intercourse. (That said, the people who think this believe that legally all marriages should be called civil unions).



In the Catholic Church, "Confession" refers to a practice in which a believer goes to a priest, admits to their sins, are given acts of penance, and then are absolved of their sins.

Do these same Catholics who think that the word marriage cannot apply to a legal construct wish for us to stop using the word "confession" to describe a criminal who admits to police or the court that a crime was committed?

What about people in prison who are raped gay?

Like Beecher from OZ?

Rape is not consentual sex. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

Rape is not consentual sex. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

Exactly. and you can't be "raped gay"... whatever the fuck that is.

I don’t think the government should even be involved in defining those contracts or providing any special treatment based on those contracts - unless it has a compelling argument why it is in the public good (and I don’t think there is one in this case - which goes to show the standard I'm implying).

Basically if gay people want to enter into a marriage and call it a marriage then there shouldn’t be any need to even tell the government.

Does "the Church" make the religion?

In regards to organized religion, yes, it does. In history, every successful religion has been the product of an organized drive to create a unified view of the way the world works, and make sure everybody conformed to that view. Almost always, there was some form of leadership evident.





So you think that religions are determined by religious leaders, and not by followers?

Ummm... yes. All religion is first laid out and defined by founders and early leaders, and then interpreted, reinterpreted, and revived by the followers throughout the centuries.
Want evidence? Roman Catholicism. Islamic Caliphates, Buddhist Lamas (Although that's slighlty different), etc. Almost all religions rely upon some sort of spiritual leader who knows better than the layperson what's going on- whether you're talking about Native American spirituality or Christianity.


....which makes even less sense. "I don't like it so nobody should be able to do it..." Yeah, that makes lots of sense. At least the ones who try and base it in religion are claiming that God is against it - trying to place the source a little higher than, "I just think its icky."

But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it's even worse, because they aren't taking responsibility for their own fears and dislikes, it's just blaming God for them. They use an ancient, ineffective rule to justify their phobias and bigotry. I'd be happier if people just said "I don't like gays and think they shouldn't get married," because that's what they really mean. Using God as a shield is in no way righteous.

In the Catholic Church, "Confession" refers to a practice in which a believer goes to a priest, admits to their sins, are given acts of penance, and then are absolved of their sins.

Do these same Catholics who think that the word marriage cannot apply to a legal construct wish for us to stop using the word "confession" to describe a criminal who admits to police or the court that a crime was committed?

I'll have to ask them. I completely agree, though, the semantics of it is a stupid thing to argue about, especially when the broader picture is equal rights for all citizens.

Remember kids, homo milk does NOT come from gay cows.

Rape is not consentual sex. It has nothing to do with this conversation.

Plus there's that little detail that "OZ" is a fictional goddamned TV show! And the whole 'gay inmate' thing-- besides being exaggerated in entertainment-- is not reflective of inmates' sexual orientation. If you want to get your rocks off and the only other people around are other males, then having sex with them doesn't make you gay. It's completely a matter of context. gawd!

Plus there's that little detail that "OZ" is a fictional goddamned TV show! And the whole 'gay inmate' thing-- besides being exaggerated in entertainment-- is not reflective of inmates' sexual orientation. If you want to get your rocks off and the only other people around are other males, then having sex with them doesn't make you gay. It's completely a matter of context. gawd!


I mean, it even has it's own name. Situational Sexual Somethingorother. They aren't gay. Jeez!

In regards to organized religion, yes, it does.

And all religion is not organized. In fact, the trend seems to be for less and less religious people to join organized religion - as they are not satisfied with taking their faith from other human beings.

In history, every successful religion has been the product of an organized drive to create a unified view of the way the world works, and make sure everybody conformed to that view. Almost always, there was some form of leadership evident.

Define "successful religion". From my perspective, my religion, while not being organized, is successful. It isn't perfect, of course, but it serves its purpose.

Ummm... yes. All religion is first laid out and defined by founders and early leaders, and then interpreted, reinterpreted, and revived by the followers throughout the centuries.

And the religion of each and every one of those followers is their own interpretation - not that of the early leaders. In fact, those followers may decide that they flat-out disagree with some of the decisions of the early leaders. A follower may pull from multiple organized religions, thinking that certain points from different ones are correct. And so on...

Do not try and put such strict boundaries around religion. You ignore many of the religious that way.

Almost all religions rely upon some sort of spiritual leader who knows better than the layperson what's going on- whether you're talking about Native American spirituality or Christianity.

Perhaps, but mine doesn't. Meanwhile, my religion *is* Christianity, so Chrisitianity obviously does not require that I rely upon any human spiritual leader.

But that doesn't make it right.

I never said it did.

Using God as a shield is in no way righteous.

Indeed.

Rape is not consentual sex. It has nothing to do with this conversation.
I'm not so sure. The people who most strongly oppose gay marriage also tend to be the people who hold to traditionalist gender roles, and those roles tell us that women pretty much never ever want sex. For them, "consent" refers to pressuring or bribing a woman to do something she really doesn't like until finally she gives up and lets you do it to her while she stares at the ceiling and thinks of England.

Given those standards, it makes perfect sense for them to include rape in any discussion of marriage. It also makes sense that they cannot grasp the importance of consent when it comes to things like adult-child or adult-animal "marriages."

Exactly. and you can't be "raped gay"... whatever the fuck that is.


Sure you can.

Thousands of guys go into prison and become gay.

Sure you can.

Thousands of guys go into prison and become gay.

And...you would know?

And...you would know?


i was the one in prision that "turned" him to the backside.

Sure you can.

Thousands of guys go into prison and become gay.


They don't "become gay", its a socio-status thing. I suggest you do some research (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/prison_sexuality).

And...you would know?

Televison.

i was the one in prision that "turned" him to the backside.


THAT WAS YOU!

Sorry I didn't realize, shower gets foggy.

Televison.

Thats where your problem is, you believe what you see in the tv.

They don't "become gay", its a socio-status thing. I suggest you do some research (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/prison_sexuality).


I know all that already.

My point was that if homosexuality is genetic, then why are there so many late bloomers, and prison conversions?

It's not all in the genes.

Thats where your problem is, you believe what you see in the tv.

As opposed to the internet?

As opposed to the internet?

If thats the case, you're watching way too much Oz. Theres a difference between fact and fiction.

If thats the case, you're watching way too much Oz. Theres a difference between fact and fiction.

Are you saying there are no men who go into prison straight and come out gay?

Not to be blunt but...
Kill em all, let god sort them out


>>Gays:fluffle: :mp5: << Me


Why would you want to do such a thing?

THAT WAS YOU!

Sorry I didn't realize, shower gets foggy.


you dropped the soap, i coudln't resist

you dropped the soap, i coudln't resist


I owe you one then.

Becuase i think its immoral and wrong, but then again, we live in america and we have the right to choose.

Bend of over and touch your toes, im gunna show you where the wild goose goes!

Are you saying there are no men who go into prison straight and come out gay?

Of course there are gay people in prison, but the majority of prison inmates are heterosexual. Just because a heterosexual man is raped by another man, does not mean he "becomes" gay. How the hell do you all of a sudden have a liking for men just cuz you were forced to have sex with a man? Think about it.

Of course there are gay people in prison, but the majority of prison inmates are heterosexual. Just because a heterosexual man is raped by another man, does not mean he "becomes" gay. How the hell do you all of a sudden have a liking for men just cuz you were forced to have sex with a man? Think about it.


I think you would hate it more... not become gay

I think you would hate it more... not become gay

Why?

Why?

Uh.. even if male-on-male rape took place in prisons as much as TV shows like OZ would have you believe (which studies show it doesn't), and even if those instances of rape were perpetrated by inmates who were actually gay and not simply men forcing themselves on the only piece of ass available to them (and most of the rapes that take place are the latter), why the hell would being raped by another man turn a guy gay?? Sexual orientation isn't the product of sexual behaviour, voluntary or involuntary. Gay people aren't gay because they've had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex-- gay people have sexual experiences with members of the same sex because we're gay. Or if understanding it in such abstractions is too much; assuming you're straight yourself, you aren't straight because you have sex with an opposite-sex partner. You have sex with an opposite-sex partner because you're straight. And if you were forced to have a sexual encounter with a member of the same sex (regardless of their orientation), that wouldn't make you gay. If anything it would probably make you more averse to future homosexual contact.

Seriously, I don't understand how some people function when they ask such questions. jeez :headbang:

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. I wanted to put an end to this debate. The president already said that homosexuality is wrong. That is is the end of the debate right there. This president knows what is best. If gay people get married, earl prices are gunna go up, we will lose the war in iriq, tourists will attack again, and bad countries will get nuclar weapons. Why can't all you laberals see this? Your just being laberal. People can turn gay thats why you dont sit beside them. Might turn gay.

Not to be blunt but...
Kill em all, let god sort them out

Gays>>:fluffle: :mp5: << Me


And to think, people actually ask me why I sometimes come off as hating straight people. And then I have to explain to them that I don't hate all straight people... just the ignorant, irrational goddamned breeders that say stupid shit like that. Seriously, don't you have something you could be doing? Like... I dunno'... knocking up your brood mare to crank out some more overpopulous spawn? Perhaps an afternoon book-burning and then a little after-dinner lynching? A shame there aren't more straight-bashing hate crimes (targeted, of course, exclusively on the ig'nunt breeders) so that they can experience what their own pathetic little prejudices have wrought on others. Let those who live by the sword die by it.

And to think, people actually ask me why I sometimes come off as hating straight people. And then I have to explain to them that I don't hate all straight people... just the ignorant, irrational goddamned breeders that say stupid shit like that. Seriously, don't you have something you could be doing? Like... I dunno'... knocking up your brood mare to crank out some more overpopulous spawn? Perhaps an afternoon book-burning and then a little after-dinner lynching? A shame there aren't more straight-bashing hate crimes (targeted, of course, exclusively on the ig'nunt breeders) so that they can experience what their own pathetic little prejudices have wrought on others. Let those who live by the sword die by it.

Did you just call me... a breeder?

I think that's a new term for me. Interesting word. But hey, I haven't actually bred yet?

Did you just call me... a breeder?

I think that's a new term for me. Interesting word. But hey, I haven't actually bred yet?

You did not eat from tree of life to enter to Pak Protector stage either ;)
*reads too much SF*