NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Only if you're one of those ignorant, prejudiced heteros. Rational, respectful straight people-- I would never dream of implying that all they're good for or can hope to make of their lives is inseminating some brood mare / getting inseminated by some sweaty redneck who can't operate a condom, collecting child support cheques to keep them in malt liquor, vinyl siding and hammocks, and hopefully bringing at least one more gay kid into the world that the rest of us can rescue and welcome into civilisation. :D

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.
You know...I'm all on your side when it comes to homosexuals(apart from the violence thing, as you already know) but are you forgetting that your parents were also "breeders"? You did, after all, come into being in some way or another, as did all other gay people.

Just saying. The breeder comment is probably unnecessary. I think you could alter it a wee bit or something so that it still targets those whom you dislike to this extreme without sounding ignorant.

I am not Gay .If any guy or lady is comfortable with his sexuallity , he should not be afraid to hide what he is into...freedom of speach etc...
respect if you are into the bumming and ting....:headbang: :headbang: :fluffle: :gundge: :sniper: :upyours:

They don't "become gay", its a socio-status thing. I suggest you do some research (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/prison_sexuality).
Prison may be a poor example, but I think it's quite obvious to point out that human sexuality isn't set in stone at birth. We all know that people's personalities can radically change over their life time. We know that people's platonic relationships can change dramatically over their lifetime. Why should it be hard to accept that people's sexuality may change over their lifetime? I know mine has.

This is not to say that people just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'm gay now," any more than they just wake up one morning and say, "I think I'm an extrovert now." But there can be a gradual change in how people perceive themselves, and (consequently) a change in how they relate to others.

Becuase i think its immoral and wrong

Why?

Prison may be a poor example, but I think it's quite obvious to point out that human sexuality isn't set in stone at birth.

It is actually. You just dont realize what that sexuality is until later.

It is actually. You just dont realize what that sexuality is until later.
No, it really isn't. See, I'm a human being, and my sexuality has changed over the course of my (admittedly brief) lifetime. It's not been a matter of me "realizing" anything, just a matter of my feelings changing with time.

This is no different than any other aspect of my personality. I've changed as I have grown. There are some fundamental parts of my personality that, I think, will always be with me, but there are many parts of me that have adapted or shifted or changed. My sexuality is no different.

It is actually. You just dont realize what that sexuality is until later.

Whether or not sexual preference is genetic, learned or both is still a hotly debated topic. However - does it really matter for this discussion ? Should we all hope for a "cure" for those poor deviant homosexuals, or for those couples that enjoy spanking eachother or even for those couples that sometimes have sex in positions other than the holy missonary ? And if such "cures" would be developed - should we force them to take it ?

Or should we say that how people express their love to eachother is their own business as long as it does not harm us ? That diversity adds to the spice of life ?

Whether or not sexual preference is genetic, learned or both is still a hotly debated topic. However - does it really matter for this discussion ? Should we all hope for a "cure" for those poor deviant homosexuals, or for those couples that enjoy spanking eachother or even for those couples that sometimes have sex in positions other than the holy missonary ? And if such "cures" would be developed - should we force them to take it ?

Or should we say that how people express their love to eachother is their own business as long as it does not harm us ? That diversity adds to the spice of life ?
Hells yeah. Can I get an AMEN?!

No, it really isn't. See, I'm a human being, and my sexuality has changed over the course of my (admittedly brief) lifetime. It's not been a matter of me "realizing" anything, just a matter of my feelings changing with time.

This is no different than any other aspect of my personality. I've changed as I have grown. There are some fundamental parts of my personality that, I think, will always be with me, but there are many parts of me that have adapted or shifted or changed. My sexuality is no different.

Your sexuality doesnt change. How you feel about it might.

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

Why does everyone assume that natural=good, volcanoes, earthquakes and smallpox epidemics are natural but not always so good. Unnatural things can be good too, look at medicine and stuff. Besides homosexuality can help reduce overpopulation.

Besides, there is no evidence that it is a disorder/mental condition any more than heterosexuality is.

Why does everyone assume that natural=good, volcanoes, earthquakes and smallpox epidemics are natural but not always so good. Unnatural things can be good too, look at medicine and stuff. Besides homosexuality can help reduce overpopulation.

Besides, there is no evidence that it is a disorder/mental condidion any more than heterosexuality is.

We arent implying that natural is good we are simply telling people who call it unnatural that they are idiots. Natural means natural. It happens. Its not wrong.

Your sexuality doesnt change. How you feel about it might.
This really isn't a subject for debate. My sexuality did change. Maybe yours hasn't, I don't really know (or care). I'm simply saying that you cannot accurately claim that human sexuality is set in stone at birth, because I am a human being whose sexuality was not set in stone at birth.

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

Not even Jesus? Not being offensive or anything but surely you base your faith, even if only loosely, on his teaching? So he would be a human spiritual leader though, right?

Your sexuality doesnt change. How you feel about it might.

Got proof? Nobody really knows whether it does or does not so we can't pretend that we know one way or the other. Though I believe that it may be due to a mixture of genetic and environmental issues that people don't have control over, so it could be influenced by genetics but change as we have positive/negative experiences of the other sex.

This really isn't a subject for debate. My sexuality did change. Maybe yours hasn't, I don't really know (or care). I'm simply saying that you cannot accurately claim that human sexuality is set in stone at birth, because I am a human being whose sexuality was not set in stone at birth.

So homosexuality can be cured?

So homosexuality can be cured?
Um...huh?

"ALL marriages are same-sex marriages. Once you get married it's the same sex, all the time. So of course homosexuals should be able to get legally married. Why should heterosexuals have to be the only miserable ones?"

--paraphrased Bill Maher

Um...huh?

If sexuality can change, is it possible to change it willingly?

Your sexuality doesnt change. How you feel about it might.

Sure it does. When you have a homosexual that decides to ignore the Christian programming and follow how God created him.

Sure it does. When you have a homosexual that decides to ignore the Christian programming and follow how God created him.

Thats not changing, thats being who you were made to be.

And yes I am fairly certain you were being sarcastic.

If sexuality can change, is it possible to change it willingly?
I think sexuality is a lot like personality. There may be people who, for example, are shy for most of their lives but then make a conscious decision to become extroverts, and manage to somehow change themselves into out-going people. However, I don't think there are many such people. Most people can't just will themselves from one end of a spectrum to another.

At the same time, there are lots and lots of shy people who gain confidence as their life goes on. There are people who are shy at one point in their lives, but later something changes and they find themselves being more and more outgoing. They couldn't have simply MADE themselves into an outgoing person by force of will, but that doesn't mean that their personality remains totally static for life. At the same time, there are people who are loud and obnoxious at one time and then mellow out and become quieter and more shy as they go.

It may be possible to help a shy person gain more confidence, or act more outgoing, but I don't think you can force it upon them. I think that even if they really want to change, they may not be able to do so at will. I think you're more likely to do harm than good if you try to force their personality to change, and I don't think your odds of succeeding are very high.

But, most importantly, there's no particular reason why we should worry about making people change their personalities. If somebody is shy, why do we assume that's a bad thing? Why would we assume they need to be "fixed"?

Why does everyone assume that natural=good, volcanoes, earthquakes and smallpox epidemics are natural but not always so good. Unnatural things can be good too, look at medicine and stuff. Besides homosexuality can help reduce overpopulation.

Besides, there is no evidence that it is a disorder/mental condition any more than heterosexuality is.

Ignore him. He does not know what he is talking about.....

So homosexuality can be cured?

Possibly. We are probably also able to cure people from other non-normal things like e.g. a talent for composing music or painting. Or exceptional math skills. Maybe in the near future we can cure people that have a tendency to dress differently than most people, or listen to alternatve music. Or those sillies that have the desire to vote for the "wrong" political party. Maybe it will even be possible to cure the mental disease called religion. Or make it possible to surgically alter people so they willingly embrace the true faith - that of course being the sect which offers the most money for this cure and not necessarily your own religion.

Hey -do not worry - after you take the blue happy pill all that makes you special, unique and an individual will be taken away. You will become completely and utterly normal. And isn't that the future you want ?

Possibly. We are probably also able to cure people from other non-normal things like e.g. a talent for composing music or painting. Or exceptional math skills. Maybe in the near future we can cure people that have a tendency to dress differently than most people, or listen to alternatve music. Or those sillies that have the desire to vote for the "wrong" political party. Maybe it will even be possible to cure the mental disease called religion. Or make it possible to surgically alter people so they willingly embrace the true faith - that of course being the sect which offers the most money for this cure and not necessarily your own religion.

Hey -do not worry - after you take the blue happy pill all that makes you special, unique and an individual will be taken away. You will become completely and utterly normal. And isn't that the future you want ?
Exactly. We already can "cure" people of being nice, if we abuse them enough. We can "cure" some people of being sensitive, if we call them "fag" enough times. We can "cure" other people of being out-spoken and strong, if we call them "bitch dike" enough times.

Possibly. We are probably also able to cure people from other non-normal things like e.g. a talent for composing music or painting. Or exceptional math skills. Maybe in the near future we can cure people that have a tendency to dress differently than most people, or listen to alternatve music. Or those sillies that have the desire to vote for the "wrong" political party. Maybe it will even be possible to cure the mental disease called religion. Or make it possible to surgically alter people so they willingly embrace the true faith - that of course being the sect which offers the most money for this cure and not necessarily your own religion.

Hey -do not worry - after you take the blue happy pill all that makes you special, unique and an individual will be taken away. You will become completely and utterly normal. And isn't that the future you want ?

So what you are telling me is, if you tell a guy who enjoys composing music to stop, he will not want to anymore?

It is actually. You just dont realize what that sexuality is until later.

I think you guys are arguing at cross-purposes. I doubt that Bottle is implying that you are ever fully straight and then you become fully gay out of the blue. But a person may be mostly attracted to men and attracted to the occasional woman during puberty. During that persons's 20's, they may find that they are attracted to women more often than they used to be. By their 30's, they may have settled down with someone and may find themselves attracted to others (male or female) very rarely. And so on....

It's really the same as someone who is often attracted to redheads in puberty, but finds themselves more attracted to blondes later on in life. The sexuality has changed, not through conscious action or a change in genetics, but just through life experience and such.


Not even Jesus? Not being offensive or anything but surely you base your faith, even if only loosely, on his teaching? So he would be a human spiritual leader though, right?

Not exactly. I believe that Christ was much, much more than human.

But a person may be mostly attracted to men and attracted to the occasional woman during puberty.

Its called bisexual. Youre born bisexual, and you realize this during puberty.

Possibly. We are probably also able to cure people from other non-normal things like e.g. a talent for composing music or painting. Or exceptional math skills. Maybe in the near future we can cure people that have a tendency to dress differently than most people, or listen to alternatve music. Or those sillies that have the desire to vote for the "wrong" political party. Maybe it will even be possible to cure the mental disease called religion. Or make it possible to surgically alter people so they willingly embrace the true faith - that of course being the sect which offers the most money for this cure and not necessarily your own religion.

Hey -do not worry - after you take the blue happy pill all that makes you special, unique and an individual will be taken away. You will become completely and utterly normal. And isn't that the future you want ?

Homosexuality is not to be cured, but accepted as the norm.. wait... was that post sarcastic?

So what you are telling me is, if you tell a guy who enjoys composing music to stop, he will not want to anymore?

It is not *that* easy, but he can be made to - yes. Or even be made to lose his talent completely. He can be "cured" from his "abnormality" and be made "normal".

Just like some people would like to do with gays.

Homosexuality is not to be cured, but accepted as the norm.. wait... was that post sarcastic?

Not entirely - I do fear that it will be possible to "cure" people that behave "abnormally" in the future - and that "abnormal" will mean "not agreeing with what the people in power say".

I personally obviously do not think that this is a future we should strive for - but many other people seem to disagree; saying that what they consider "yucky" or "abnormal" should be made illegal - without caring if the actions they forbid were actually hurting anyone.

Its called bisexual. Youre born bisexual, and you realize this during puberty.

Bisexual is not a set-point, my dear. Sexuality is a spectrum, not a set of discrete points. And while a given person would be unlikely to jump from one end of the spectrum to the other over their lifetime, they may move along it a certain amount in either direction.

It is not *that* easy, but he can be made to - yes. Or even be made to lose his talent completely. He can be "cured" from his "abnormality" and be made "normal".

Just like some people would like to do with gays.

Ok now tell me this.

Can you be "forced" to not feel hunger? Can you be "forced" to not feel thirst?

All i have to say is when me and my kid walk down the street i dont wan to see 2 guys making out. Dont bring ur personal life into public.

All i have to say is when me and my kid walk down the street i dont wan to see 2 guys making out. Dont bring ur personal life into public.

And lets go further. I dont want to see you and your son walking down the street together.

Thats your personal life and by George I dont need to fucking see it!

All i have to say is when me and my kid walk down the street i dont wan to see 2 guys making out. Dont bring ur personal life into public.

Does the same go for a man and a woman making out?

Yes, of course.

Yes, of course.

Then what does your comment have to do with the discussion at hand? You don't like to see people making out in public - I can understand that. But it has little to do with the subject of this thread.

Bisexual is not a set-point, my dear. Sexuality is a spectrum, not a set of discrete points. And while a given person would be unlikely to jump from one end of the spectrum to the other over their lifetime, they may move along it a certain amount in either direction.
Exactly!

I don't see why this is such a hard concept for people. Why is everybody so in love with the idea that your "sexual personality" must be pre-programmed and unchangeable? And why is everybody so damn convinced that we have to break everything down into two narrow little categories, maybe with some third catch-all category for whatever's left over, and then force all human beings to shove themselves into these arbitrary classifications?

Cripes, how deeply unimaginative ARE these people?!

Ok now tell me this.

Can you be "forced" to not feel hunger? Can you be "forced" to not feel thirst?
Yes and no. You can certainly be conditioned in ways that will change your experience of hunger or thirst. Sometimes this could be done against your wishes, though it's more likely to succeed if you actively participate.

It's also very easy to "condition" somebody (particularly if they are young) to like or dislike certain foods and drinks. We see this all the time, with people who grow up in different cultures often having different tastes because of the food they grew up with. These tastes are not written in their genes, of course, but are a product of their surroundings. They can also change as time goes on; I had a major sweet tooth as a kid, but not so much any more. I used to like oranges, but a really bad experience has made it so that I no longer can stand them. I never used to be able to use cough drops because I couldn't stand the flavor, but I've learned to associate that flavor with relief from a bad cough, so now I actually kind of like it.

The thing is, changing a person's preferences is goddam complicated, and it's not like there is a magical formula you can apply that will automatically give you the result you want. Every person is different, as is every situation, so you aren't going to be able to subject all people to the same program and get the same result. Some people may produce the OPPOSITE result from what you are going for. Others may just ignore it. Everything that we experience will influence us in one way or another, and it's pretty damn silly to think you can anticipate all the possible variables.

Hey Kazus, that big post of yours has made the page width go all wonky for me...any chance you could reduce the font or something? I'll bribe you with cookies, if necessary. :)

Gah, I'm going to have to just keep posting random stuff until the thread flips onto the next page, aren't I?

O, lets go further, how about the next time i see you i rip your splean out threw your throat, string barbwire in your mouth and out ur ass, hang u up like a pinaitta and beat you to death with a bat with nails in it.
You do realize, of course, that a reaction like this one leads everybody to one obvious conclusion:

You are very, very homosexual, and very, very repressed.

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction.

Nope. Reproduction is one of the many purposes of sex, but there are plenty of other functions of sex which serve to increase an individual's fitness. Considering that the vast, overwhelming majority of sexual encounters between humans do not lead to reproduction (and never have), it is supremely silly to insist that reproduction is the One True Function of sex.


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

Again, totally incorrect. Are you aware that many females are at their horniest during their menstrual periods? This means they are most interested in sex at the time when they are physically unable to reproduce.


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

What "system" is that?

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
Hehe. I missed this the first time through the thread, and since I'm trying to bump this thread over onto the next page anyhow, this seems like a good time to give you belated props for your wit.

Gah, I'm going to have to just keep posting random stuff until the thread flips onto the next page, aren't I?
One more try?

Exactly!

I don't see why this is such a hard concept for people. Why is everybody so in love with the idea that your "sexual personality" must be pre-programmed and unchangeable? And why is everybody so damn convinced that we have to break everything down into two narrow little categories, maybe with some third catch-all category for whatever's left over, and then force all human beings to shove themselves into these arbitrary classifications?

Cripes, how deeply unimaginative ARE these people?!

Bisexual is the general term for sexual interest in both sexes. If you like both sexes, you are bisexual. If you like women more than men, but like both, you are still bisexual.

Bisexual is the general term for sexual interest in both sexes. If you like both sexes, you are bisexual. If you like women more than men, but like both, you are still bisexual.
I know what the term means. I happen to be a "bisexual." It's the CONCEPT that is stupid.

Sexuality is a continuum, like any other feature of human personality. It's stupid to put arbitrary little lines in certain spots and say, "Whoever falls within this range must call themselves X, and whoever is within this range is Y." You're just making up categories and shoving people into them, which is a waste of everybody's time.

I use "bisexual" to describe myself because it's the only word most people understand, but it's still a stupid freaking word. It still assumes that sexuality has one of two "directions," and these directions must be determined by the physical sex of the partner you desire. What a pathetic idea. Sexuality has far more "directions" than just those two, particularly since physical sex itself isn't binary!

Oh, and by the way...thanks for fixing the font on that last page. My browser and I really appreciate it. :)

Bisexual is the general term for sexual interest in both sexes. If you like both sexes, you are bisexual. If you like women more than men, but like both, you are still bisexual.

But if that spectrum exists, is it really that much of a leap to realize that a person can be damn near exclusively interested in one sex throughout part of their life, but can move along the spectrum just a little to the point where they are occasionally attracted to the other at at different time in their lives?

But if that spectrum exists, is it really that much of a leap to realize that a person can be damn near exclusively interested in one sex throughout part of their life, but can move along the spectrum just a little to the point where they are occasionally attracted to the other at at different time in their lives?

They were always attracted to the other. They realize it now.

They were always attracted to the other. They realize it now.
I've met a few people who have attachments to their vacuum cleaners.

They were always attracted to the other. They realize it now.
So what you are saying is, basically, that even though I used to like oranges but now can't stand them, what really happened is that I always hated oranges and I just didn't realize it?

You may not be intending it this way, but you're coming across as incredibly arrogant. Who are you to tell people what they "really" want, or what they are "really" attracted to? How can you possibly presume to tell them that they ALWAYS must have liked something, when they disagree?

And, frankly, how dare you tell me what I must have felt. You don't have the faintest idea what attractions I experience, or experienced, so how dare you presume to tell me that I must always have felt one way and just didn't realize it. You're the one who's NEVER felt my feelings, so how come your analysis is supposed to be more accurate than mine?

So what you are saying is, basically, that even though I used to like oranges but now can't stand them, what really happened is that I always hated oranges and I just didn't realize it?

No, your feelings on the orange have changed. Not the way you taste it.

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.
LMAO!! :D

No, your feelings on the orange have changed. Not the way you taste it.
So you are saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals have different physiological senses than one another? Are you saying that a homosexual has a different sense of touch than a heterosexual does?

Also, just so we're clear, your sense of taste DOES change over your lifetime. Your tastebuds, and their distribution, change with age, as well as with exposure to different stimuli. So you're wrong twice. :)

They were always attracted to the other. They realize it now.

So you think it is absolutely impossible for a person's sexuality to move one iota along the spectrum, even though every other human trait which exists along a spectrum will do so over their lives? You think it is absolutely impossible for a person's sexuality to change at all, even though every other aspect of their personality will do so over their lives?

Does that really make sense to you?


No, your feelings on the orange have changed. Not the way you taste it.

Do you really think it is impossible for an actual biochemical change to take place which would result in a distaste for oranges where one did not take place before?

This is looking more and more like it is a lack of understanding of biolgy on your part than anything else. In normal aging, the way we taste things will change.

Exactly!

I don't see why this is such a hard concept for people. Why is everybody so in love with the idea that your "sexual personality" must be pre-programmed and unchangeable? And why is everybody so damn convinced that we have to break everything down into two narrow little categories, maybe with some third catch-all category for whatever's left over, and then force all human beings to shove themselves into these arbitrary classifications?

Cripes, how deeply unimaginative ARE these people?!
Excellent points, dear Bottle! I'm impressed! :D

So you are saying that homosexuals and heterosexual have different physiological senses than one another? Are you saying that a homosexual has a different sense of touch than a heterosexual does?

Sense yes.

Sense of touch no.

This is looking more and more like it is a lack of understanding of biolgy on your part than anything else. In normal aging, the way we taste things will change.

Our senses dont change. If they do, they are useless. I smell shit, I know its shit. If tomorrow my senses change, I wont know I'm smelling shit. This renders senses worthless.

Shit will always smell like shit. How you feel about the perception is a different story.

Sense yes.

Sense of touch no.

Okay, which of the physiological senses is altered between heterosexuals and homosexuals, then?

Our senses dont change.

Yes, they do.


If they do, they are useless.

No, they're not.


I smell shit, I know its shit. If tomorrow my senses change, I wont know I'm smelling shit. This renders senses worthless.
Okay, so this really just boils down to you not understanding how perception works. That's ok, it just means that you need to stop telling people what they do and do not feel, because you're way off in left field.

Excellent points, dear Bottle! I'm impressed! :D
I have my moments.

Also, I want to add "deeply bored" to "unimaginative," because these people also seem to have nothing better to do than tell me what I must and must not feel. They are clearly so goddammed bored that they need to entertain themselves by coming up with all the many reasons why they know my feelings better than I do, and why I'm clearly not in any position to know who I am attracted to.

You know, maybe if they weren't so unimaginative about their own sexualities, then they wouldn't be so bored that they have to concern themselves with mine. :)

Our senses dont change.

Yes, my dear, they do. Our senses are biochemical processes in our bodies. These processes can and do change over time, with aging, with all sorts of inputs.

If they do, they are useless.

Hardly.

I smell shit, I know its shit. If tomorrow my senses change, I wont know I'm smelling shit. This renders senses worthless.

Once again, we aren't talking about huge leaps and bounds here. We are talking about gradual changes - small changes. We aren't talking about shit suddenly beginning to smell like roses. More like shit smelling slightly different over time - but always recognizable as shit.

Okay, which of the physiological senses is altered between heterosexuals and homosexuals, then?

Are you familiar with pheromones?

Okay, so this really just boils down to you not understanding how perception works. That's ok, it just means that you need to stop telling people what they do and do not feel, because you're way off in left field.

Shit will always smell the same. I may one day come to like the smell of shit, but that doesnt mean the smell of shit is different.

And yes, it does render them useless if your senses change. If i walk into a room full of shit blindfolded, I will know its shit. If my sense of smell changed, I could walk into that room and not know its shit. Thats just retarded.

Are you familiar with pheromones?

Yes, though there is no conclusive evidence that humans respond to pheromone signals when it comes to sex.

So you are saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals have different senses of smell, then?


Shit will always smell the same. I may one day come to like the smell of shit, but that doesnt mean the smell of shit is different.

But that's the whole point. Sexuality isn't about the sensory information coming in, it's about the individual's reaction to that sensory information.

If a gay man is touched romantically by another man, he may have a very different response to that touch than a straight man would have. Same sensory input, different reactions. It's not that the gay man has different mechanoreceptors in his skin, or that the sensory homunculous in his cortex is altered, it's that his feelings in response to the stimulus are different.

Or hey, let's just bring this back to the thing with oranges. You seem to be claiming that I still perceive the same smell, I just feel different about it. If you and I both smell oranges, we may have very different reactions to the smell even though we both smell the same thing. Sexuality is the same way; I may have one response to a particular stimulus (i.e. a hot guy walks into the room), while you have a totally different response to the same stimulus. Our sense of vision is the same, we are both receiving the same information, but our feelings about the information are different.

Yes, though there is no conclusive evidence that humans respond to pheromone signals.

So you are saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals have different senses of smell, then?

Pheromones arent detectable by the human sense of smell. And there is ample evidence to prove that human pheromones exist. Babies show a clear preference for pieces of clothing that have been worn by their own mothers, for example, and research suggests that men and women choose their mates in part by "sniffing out" partners with compatible immune systems. Companies have even made perfumes based on a theoretical pheromone.

Oh, and ever wonder how the menstrual cycles of women who live together sometimes coincide?

I believe this has been posted before, but:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_lesbian.html

It's about the individual's reaction to that sensory information.

Uh, thats what I have been saying.

Pheromones arent detectable by the human sense of smell.

Um. What do you think a pheromone is?


And there is ample evidence to prove that human pheromones exist. Babies show a clear preference for pieces of clothing that have been worn by their own mothers, for example, and research suggests that men and women choose their mates in part by "sniffing out" partners with compatible immune systems. Companies have even made perfumes based on a theoretical pheromone.

So if pheromones aren't detectable by the human sense of smell, then what's all this about "sniffing out"? Why would perfurme companies care about pheromones, if they've got nothing to do with the sense of smell?


Uh, thats what I have been saying.
No, you've been saying the opposite.

I pointed out that my sexuality (my response to particular stimuli) has changed with time. You said, "No, it hasn't," even though I provided the parallel example of how my feelings about oranges have changed. You seem to think that my preference for oranges can change without my sense of smell changing, yet my preference for men or women cannot change unless some sensory mechanism (which you are refering to as "pheromones") changes.

In conclusion, all humans are bisexual. Thank you.

Man, this forum didn't used to be so full of cowards. It's really getting lame.

I pointed out that my sexuality (my response to particular stimuli) has changed with time. You said, "No, it hasn't," even though I provided the parallel example of how my feelings about oranges have changed. You seem to think that my preference for oranges can change without my sense of smell changing, yet my preference for men or women cannot change unless some sensory mechanism (which you are refering to as "pheromones") changes.

And the really fun thing is that, unless you posit a consciousness apart from its connection to the physical - even a change in "feelings" about something would be related to physical - biochemical - changes.

And the really fun thing is that, unless you posit a consciousness apart from its connection to the physical - even a change in "feelings" about something would be related to physical - biochemical - changes.
Oh, to be sure!

I'm certainly not denying that my body has undergone physiological changes or that some of those changes may be related to my experience of my sexuality. Every thought or feeling I have is biophysical, and sexual feelings are not going to be magically exempt from that.

All I was saying is that it's flat out stupid to tell people that their sexual feelings cannot change, or that their sexual preferences are set in stone before they've even reached sexual maturity. We don't make that kind of bullshit claim about any other aspect of human personality, so why should sexuality be the one area where we make up this kind of random rule?

In conclusion, all humans are bisexual. Thank you.
No they're not. I'm all fag. A counterexample to your claim has been found, case closed.

We don't make that kind of bullshit claim about any other aspect of human personality, so why should sexuality be the one area where we make up this kind of random rule?
Because the contrary makes the fundies and bigots uneasy.

Because the contrary makes the fundies and bigots uneasy.
The thing is, though, it seems to make a lot of gay people uneasy, too. You'd be surprised at how much crap I get from gay people when I am open about how my own sexuality has changed with time. Gay people are as likely as straights to get pissed off at me for not 'making up my mind' and 'playing for one team or the other.' A lot of gay people are infuriated that I refuse to become exclusively gay or straight.

Hell, just look at this thread! A guy who seems to be on the gay-supportive side has just spent pages insisting that I can't possibly feel what I feel because all people MUST be either gay or straight (or bisexual) from birth. The very fact that my feelings have changed was interpretted to mean that I think homosexuality needs to be cured.

Oh, to be sure!

I'm certainly not denying that my body has undergone physiological changes or that some of those changes may be related to my experience of my sexuality. Every thought or feeling I have is biophysical, and sexual feelings are not going to be magically exempt from that.

All I was saying is that it's flat out stupid to tell people that their sexual feelings cannot change, or that their sexual preferences are set in stone before they've even reached sexual maturity. We don't make that kind of bullshit claim about any other aspect of human personality, so why should sexuality be the one area where we make up this kind of random rule?

Indeed. That wasn't mean to be an argument with you, but with Kazus. Kazus seems to be saying that changes in "feelings" are somehow disconnected from changes in the physical.

Indeed. That wasn't mean to be an argument with you, but with Kazus. Kazus seems to be saying that changes in "feelings" are somehow disconnected from changes in the physical.
I guess he is, yeah. Also, that sexual preference is totally unlike any other kind of preference, in that sexual preference cannot change unless one of the external sensory mechanisms is altered.

comming from a strait man: buttsex rules, I engage in it with the female, and it fucking rules, go out and GETSOME right now! whats also stupid is when other strait ppl think buttsex between two different genders is somehow gay, how the fuck is that possible? its ok, ppl are just stupid as fuck. and something they dont understand they automaticly fear and hate. its the same thing as racism.

The thing is, though, it seems to make a lot of gay people uneasy, too. You'd be surprised at how much crap I get from gay people when I am open about how my own sexuality has changed with time. Gay people are as likely as straights to get pissed off at me for not 'making up my mind' and 'playing for one team or the other.' A lot of gay people are infuriated that I refuse to become exclusively gay or straight.

Hell, just look at this thread! A guy who seems to be on the gay-supportive side has just spent pages insisting that I can't possibly feel what I feel because all people MUST be either gay or straight (or bisexual) from birth. The very fact that my feelings have changed was interpretted to mean that I think homosexuality needs to be cured.

I think this stems from the ongoing debate in the USA of whether gayness is a choice or not. Supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians always seem to take the defensive and say that being gay is not a choice, and that you shouldn't discriminate against someone for something that isn't a choice.

They must probably dislike what you say because it might make it seem as if one has a conscious influence over his sexuality. I always rail at that stance. This is a false debate. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Whether sexuality changes or not is irrelevant. This issue is, and always has been, about bigotry, not so-called immorality of sexuality.

I am convinced no one can consciouly change his attractions. But even if we could, we'd still be entitled in liking whoever the hell we fancy.

comming from a strait man: buttsex rules, I engage in it with the female, and it fucking rules, go out and GETSOME right now! whats also stupid is when other strait ppl think buttsex between two different genders is somehow gay, how the fuck is that possible? its ok, ppl are just stupid as fuck. and something they dont understand they automaticly fear and hate. its the same thing as racism.
Funnily enough, I hear this more and more.

I have to admit even I was somehow dumbfunded when I heard one of my straight male friends say how much he had going anal with his girlfriend. But after the initial shock wore off, I thought: hey, straight guys have prostates too. No need for us to hoard all the prostaty(I invented a new word!) goodness to ourselves! Spread the word! :D

I think this stems from the ongoing debate in the USA of whether gayness is a choice or not. Supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians always seem to take the defensive and say that being gay is not a choice, and that you shouldn't discriminate against someone for something that isn't a choice.

And, while I understand that argument, I always end up yelling at people who make it. We don't automatically get to discriminate against others for something that IS a choice (religion springs to mind), after all.


They must probably dislike what you say because it might make it seem as if one has a conscious influence over his sexuality.

But that's a totally bunk assumption on their part. Saying that my sexuality has changed over time does not in any way equate to me saying that I can consciously change my sexual orientation at will. My height has also changed over time, but that doesn't mean I can wake up in the morning and decide to be taller than I was yesterday.


I always rail at that stance. This is a false debate. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Whether sexuality changes or not is irrelevant. This issue is, and always has been, about bigotry, not so-called immorality of sexuality.

Preech on!


I am convinced no one can consciouly change his attractions. But even if we could, we'd still be entitled in liking whoever the hell we fancy.
Hell fucking yes. Even if a person could choose to be gay or straight on a whim, there still would be exactly zero justification for why gay citizens should have fewer rights than straight citizens.

Funnily enough, I hear this more and more.

I have to admit even I was somehow dumbfunded when I heard one of my straight male friends say how much he had going anal with his girlfriend. But after the initial shock wore off, I thought: hey, straight guys have prostates too. No need for us to hoard all the prostaty(I invented a new word!) goodness to ourselves! Spread the word! :D
The weird thing is that there are people who think having anal sex with a woman is ok, but not with a man. Considering that women do not have prostates, this seems like (forgive me) an ass-backwards stance on the subject.

I also don't get why anal sex and homosexuality seem to be equated in some people's minds. I've had me a TON of gay sex, and I'm totally and completely not into anal. I've tried it, but never liked it, and would be delighted if I could go the rest of my life without ever doing it again. Meanwhile, the people I know who are having the most anal sex are a heterosexual couple. (Who, incidently, are "virgins" until marriage. Yeah, they're those people.)

The weird thing is that there are people who think having anal sex with a woman is ok, but not with a man. Considering that women do not have prostates, this seems like (forgive me) an ass-backwards stance on the subject.

I also don't get why anal sex and homosexuality seem to be equated in some people's minds. I've had me a TON of gay sex, and I'm totally and completely not into anal. I've tried it, but never liked it, and would be delighted if I could go the rest of my life without ever doing it again. Meanwhile, the people I know who are having the most anal sex are a heterosexual couple. (Who, incidently, are "virgins" until marriage. Yeah, they're those people.)
In my opinion, it's the pervasive thought in the ignorant circles that homosexuality is only about sex. And of course, those ignorant persons who would never have a thought about two persons of the same gender falling in love assume that gay sex means anal sex.

Because, you know, gay men enjoy nothing else than buttfucking each other until they're numb down there. Everyone knows that. God forbid they actually caress each other, have oral sex, or forgo completely the heterocentrist and religiously supported thought that sex = penetration. [/sarcasm]

To you straights out there: sex =/= penetration. There are many ways to make love to your partner that does not necessarily involve putting piece A in slot B. Use your goddamn imagination, for fuck's sake.

In my opinion, it's the pervasive thought in the ignorant circles that homosexuality is only about sex. And of course, those ignorant persons who would never have a thought about two persons of the same gender falling in love assume that gay sex means anal sex.

Because, you know, gay men enjoy nothing else than buttfucking each other until they're numb down there. Everyone knows that. God forbid they actually caress each other, have oral sex, or forgo completely the heterocentrist and religiously supported thought that sex = penetration. [/sarcasm]

Also, there is no such thing as lesbians, because it is impossible to have sex without inserting a penis into something.


To you straights out there: sex =/= penetration. There are many ways to make love to your partner that does not necessarily involve putting piece A in slot B. Use your goddamn imagination, for fuck's sake.
There are soooooooooo many straight guys who really need to learn this. And not just because they're being selfish dinks by always wanting sex to be about shoving their penis into an oriface, but also because they're cheating THEMSELVES out of some great sex play. I actually once had a male lover who was totally startled to discover that he could orgasm without having his penis inserted into something. At the age of 20, this surprised him, the poor darling.

Also, there is no such thing as lesbians, because it is impossible to have sex without inserting a penis into something.

Someone asked Queen Victoria - when she was condemning Sodomites and men who lie with men - "what about women?" and her response was that it wasn't possible, so she didn't need to outlaw it.

Also, there is no such thing as lesbians, because it is impossible to have sex without inserting a penis into something.

Everyone knows lesbians like to use giant plastic penises.

Porn would not lie to us, would it? :eek:


There are soooooooooo many straight guys who really need to learn this. And not just because they're being selfish dinks by always wanting sex to be about shoving their penis into an oriface, but also because they're cheating THEMSELVES out of some great sex play. I actually once had a male lover who was totally startled to discover that he could orgasm without having his penis inserted into something. At the age of 20, this surprised him, the poor darling.
Well, 20 is still pretty young; it all depends on when he started his active sex life. I was a virgin until almost 19, so at 20 there were still a couple of things that could surprise me.

Heck, I hope I'll keep getting surprised till I'm old and wrinkled! ;)

Someone asked Queen Victoria - when she was condemning Sodomites and men who lie with men - "what about women?" and her response was that it wasn't possible, so she didn't need to outlaw it.
Those poor, clueless victorian era puritans. How wrong were they.

Everyone knows lesbians like to use giant plastic penises.

Porn would not lie to us, would it? :eek:

Of course not. All women secretly desire to make out with their twin sister while creepy, hairy, middle-aged men look on lustfully. Porn told me so.


Well, 20 is still pretty young; it all depends on when he started his active sex life. I was a virgin until almost 19, so at 20 there were still a couple of things that could surprise me.

I suppose that's true, but I always assumed people figured out their own bodies more than that. I always assumed that guys must play with their bodies at least as much as I play with mine, so I have been surprised at how ignorant many men are about how they can get off.


Heck, I hope I'll keep getting surprised till I'm old and wrinkled! ;)
That's certainly a good perspective, and I absolutely don't have anything against people learning new things as they go along. It just makes me sad to think of all the people who aren't having great sex but want to, and who COULD have great sex if only somebody could get them to pick up the clue phone.

Those poor, clueless victorian era puritans. How wrong were they.
It's not just them though innit? It's only still on the books that legal sex = penetration. At least I know it is here and all, so any dykes what don't go in for fisting (toys don't count right) are Virgins.

It's not just them though innit? It's only still on the books that legal sex = penetration. At least I know it is here and all, so any dykes what don't go in for fisting (toys don't count right) are Virgins.
Virginity is a flexible, relative concept. There are pretty much as many definitions of it as there are people around.

For example, I certainly wouldn't consider Bottle's two straight friends who engage in anal sex "virgins" just because they haven't had full vaginal penetration. But whatever makes them feel less guilty at night...

Virginity is a flexible, relative concept. There are pretty much as many definitions of it as there are people around.

For example, I certainly wouldn't consider Bottle's two straight friends who engage in anal sex "virgins" just because they haven't had full vaginal penetration. But whatever makes them feel less guilty at night...


I think that was a burn, but im not quite sure yet....
Well, i thought about this and im not choosing a side anymore :)

I think that was a burn, but im not quite sure yet....
Well, i thought about this and im not choosing a side anymore :)
Not choosing a side?

Anyone who isn't openly with us is siding with those damned breeders!

[/sarcasm]

For example, I certainly wouldn't consider Bottle's two straight friends who engage in anal sex "virgins" just because they haven't had full vaginal penetration. But whatever makes them feel less guilty at night...
Cerebrally, I try to accept that virginity is pretty much a state of mind, and a person is a virgin for as long as they feel they are one.

At the same time, though, I have a hard time thinking of somebody as a "virgin" if they're going through $40 of anal lube each month.

Cerebrally, I try to accept that virginity is pretty much a state of mind, and a person is a virgin for as long as they feel they are one.

At the same time, though, I have a hard time thinking of somebody as a "virgin" if they're going through $40 of anal lube each month.
40$ ? Well, I'll be damned. I never spent more than 20$ a YEAR back when I had a boyfriend.

Who said anal sex was a gay thing again?

Okay, I'm gonna blow your mind with my screwed up sexuality. Though this seems to be settling down a little now, I have no idea if that's permanent or just another little thing.

My sexuality seems to change month by month. in any given day, I am somewhat attracted to both males and females, as in if I see hot specimens of either sex I will be turned on. But I only fantasize about one gender, which switches on me from month to month. It's really friggen wierd.
While I am feeling into guys, it takes an actual effort to try and fantasize about girls. This gets to the point where I wonder if I'm not actually bisexual but just gay. Then I litterally wake up one morning, and feel more or less "tired of guys", and start fantasizing about girls exclusively to the point where I wonder if I'm actually straight. Recently this has calmed down, and i've been fantasizing about both, though I have no idea of that's permanent progress, or just another little event.

By the way, I'm eighteen.

"I'm eighteen, and I don't know what I want, Eighteen, I just don't know what I want! Eighteen, I gotta get away, I gotta get out of this place I'll go runnin in outer space Oh yeah!"
--Creed

Okay, I'm gonna blow your mind with my screwed up sexuality. Though this seems to be settling down a little now, I have no idea if that's permanent or just another little thing.

My sexuality seems to change month by month. in any given day, I am somewhat attracted to both males and females, as in if I see hot specimens of either sex I will be turned on. But I only fantasize about one gender, which switches on me from month to month. It's really friggen wierd.
While I am feeling into guys, it takes an actual effort to try and fantasize about girls. This gets to the point where I wonder if I'm not actually bisexual but just gay. Then I litterally wake up one morning, and feel more or less "tired of guys", and start fantasizing about girls exclusively to the point where I wonder if I'm actually straight. Recently this has calmed down, and i've been fantasizing about both, though I have no idea of that's permanent progress, or just another little event.

By the way, I'm eighteen.

"I'm eighteen, and I don't know what I want, Eighteen, I just don't know what I want! Eighteen, I gotta get away, I gotta get out of this place I'll go runnin in outer space Oh yeah!"
--Creed
Well, it's hard to say if any of it has to do with any repressed homophobia you might have. It's certainly a possibility, though.

It could also be that in one of those months, you saw a hot girl/guy and had a crush on him/her, making you pretty much uninterested in the opposite gender. Lots of people lose interest for others when they have a big crush going on.

Or it could be you're still under the process of discovering and exploring your sexuality. You're still 18, so it makes sense for you to have questions or feel confused. If that's the case this'll probably settle down in the following months/years.

I doubt that your mood swings are permanent. More likely it's that teenage crisis that has gotten you a little later than usual.

Well, it's hard to say if any of it has to do with any repressed homophobia you might have. It's certainly a possibility, though.

I really don't think that's it. I don't think this comes from a wish to be one side or the other, and I've never been homophobic at all.

It could also be that in one of those months, you saw a hot girl/guy and had a crush on him/her, making you pretty much uninterested in the opposite gender. Lots of people lose interest for others when they have a big crush going on.
Once again, I don't think so. This isn't one of those months, this is nearly every one or two months for, like, two years. (ever since I figured out what I was feeling.)
Or it could be you're still under the process of discovering and exploring your sexuality. You're still 18, so it makes sense for you to have questions or feel confused. If that's the case this'll probably settle down in the following months/years.
I really hope this is the case, and that it becomes less intense, because it may be problematic with any partner I may choose to have.

I really hope this is the case, and that it becomes less intense, because it may be problematic with any partner I may choose to have.
Well I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who suits your tastes no matter.

Heck, if all else fails find yourself a nice androgynous looking guy/gal ;)

I rather abandoned this! I didn't think it'd get more hits.

I any case, to summarize about 10 pages, I don't think that sexuality can be confined to any one or two preferences. As was said earlier, sexuality is a continuum, much like a political spectrum. I look at my own sexuality in this way.

However, as was also said, there is no choice in the matter. You end up the way you end up, no matter what that end is. Sexuality, I belive, manifests during puberty in all humans, and from there is solidified and defined.

40$ ? Well, I'll be damned. I never spent more than 20$ a YEAR back when I had a boyfriend.

Who said anal sex was a gay thing again?
Not to continue belaboring this point, but these hetero virgin friends of mine insist upon purchasing imported anal lube. It's made with some crazy extract of somethingorother, possibly based on a formula derived by ancient priestesses and mixed by the light of a full blue moon, and this goo costs more than my typical grocery bill.

This is why I always skip a beat when somebody starts equating anal sex with homosexuality. I keep thinking, "If only you homophobes knew what your friends were up to..."

I really don't think that's it. I don't think this comes from a wish to be one side or the other, and I've never been homophobic at all.

I've had some similar feelings, myself, and I also have never been homophobic, nor have I ever particularly wanted to "pick a team."


I really hope this is the case, and that it becomes less intense, because it may be problematic with any partner I may choose to have.
Honestly, that's really the only thing that matters; if your "mood swings" make it impossible for you to remain in a stable relationship, that could seriously suck if you ever find yourself wanting to commit to somebody.

I worried at one point that I might have trouble committing to one person, since I'm attracted to both men and women. I thought, "What if I can't be satisfied in a relationship with a man, knowing I'll never be with a woman again? Or vice versa?"

However, as was also said, there is no choice in the matter. You end up the way you end up, no matter what that end is.

I think that is an oversimplification. I don't think it's possible for somebody to wake up one day and say, "I think I'm going to completely change my sexuality today," but I also think individuals do have some measure of influence over their sexual personality.


Sexuality, I belive, manifests during puberty in all humans, and from there is solidified and defined.
Gag. And, yet again, people cling to the totally unrealistic notion of set, immutable human sexuality. I'm living proof that your theory is wrong, so feel free to acknowledge your mistake at any time. :)

I worried at one point that I might have trouble committing to one person, since I'm attracted to both men and women. I thought, "What if I can't be satisfied in a relationship with a man, knowing I'll never be with a woman again? Or vice versa?"
I'm bisexual, and I didn't have any long term relationships with any men - they were all short term. I began to think that's how most men are wired.

On the other hand, I've never had a problem having a long term relationship with women. And my wife and I are swingers, and I still get to play with men (and other women).

So go figure.

I'm bisexual, and I didn't have any long term relationships with any men - they were all short term. I began to think that's how most men are wired.

Not meaning to attack you, here, but I really hate that kind of thinking. It lets jerks off the hook.

If a man treats you badly, or cannot act lovingly and honorably, don't let him off the hook by saying, "Oh, I guess guys are just wired that way." If guys seem to be unwilling to commit to a relationship with you, don't write it off as a uniform trait of males, because there are plenty of guys who can prove you wrong.

If a women is passive-aggressive, manipulative, or tries to emotionally blackmail you, don't let her off the hook by saying, "Oh, that's just how women are." If a woman tries to push you into a commitment you aren't ready for, don't just say, "Oh, well, all women want committment, so that's just how she is."

Jerks LOOOOOOOOVE to have excuses for their behavior. Guys who cheat love to say that it's just because men are wired that way. Girls who are possessive and passive-aggressive just love to say it's because that's how girls are. Screw that noise.

On the other hand, I've never had a problem having a long term relationship with women. And my wife and I are swingers, and I still get to play with men (and other women).

So go figure.
I've found that there's a particular personality type that I gel best with, and men tend to have that personality type more often than women. I think that's just a matter of socialization, nothing innate about men and women, but it does mean that my odds of finding a life-long male companion are higher than my odds of finding a life-long female companion.

I've found that there's a particular personality type that I gel best with, and men tend to have that personality type more often than women. I think that's just a matter of socialization, nothing innate about men and women, but it does mean that my odds of finding a life-long male companion are higher than my odds of finding a life-long female companion.
Well, there's a lot more to a long term relationship than just sex. So there are other factors to look for, as you note.

Well, there's a lot more to a long term relationship than just sex. So there are other factors to look for, as you note.
Yeah. Sex with men and women is equally appealing to me, but in neither case is it sufficient to make me want to have a committed relationship with the individual.

it's important to know the difference of sexual attraction, and the attraction to a possible boy/girlfriend.
The sexual attraction is to what gender you would like having sex with, and the possible-boy/girlfriend attraction is to what gender you would fall in love with. Many straight guys discovers they like sex with both genders, but only fall in love with women. Theyre bisexual, but straight.
in extreme cases, you would come over a man who just like sex with men, not women, but fall in love with just females, etc...

it's important to know the difference of sexual attraction, and the attraction to a possible boy/girlfriend.
The sexual attraction is to what gender you would like having sex with, and the possible-boy/girlfriend attraction is to what gender you would fall in love with. Many straight guys discovers they like sex with both genders, but only fall in love with women. Theyre bisexual, but straight.
in extreme cases, you would come over a man who just like sex with men, not women, but fall in love with just females, etc...
I'm sure you mean well, but quite frankly we don't need another round of made-up terms for arbitrary categories.

I'm physically attracted to both men and women. I tend to form long-term relationships primarily with men, and I'm currently monogamous with a man. Am I straight? Hell no. The last thing I need is more people telling me what terms I have to squeeze myself into.

I think that is an oversimplification. I don't think it's possible for somebody to wake up one day and say, "I think I'm going to completely change my sexuality today," but I also think individuals do have some measure of influence over their sexual personality.
That's what I started off this thread with. Humans undoubtedly have some influence over their sexuality, but I don't think it extends to actual sexual preference- you can't change who you like. You can, however, influence your sexual behavior.


Gag. And, yet again, people cling to the totally unrealistic notion of set, immutable human sexuality. I'm living proof that your theory is wrong, so feel free to acknowledge your mistake at any time. :)

I think you misunderstand me. You, as a bisexual person, are attracted to both men and women. Fine. But, other people are attracted exclusively to men. That much doesn't change in them, they simply aren't sexually attracted to women. I don't argue that there is an immutable sexuality fore every person. What I believe is that each person has a niche they need to fill for themselves along the sexual continuum.

I also don't see any issue with pubertal sexual development. Puberty is when all sex drives develop and solidify - that much is known by science. I reason that the same is true for homosexuality. Now, those people who have changing sexual appetites, I don't believe are changing their sexual views. I believe that it is inherent in a person the extent to which they are attracted to the genders. Following behavioral psychology, our sexual behavior in those areas is defined by how we are raised and taught.

Also, I'll reference Kinsey's Scale, which I think is fairly accurate in describing homosexual relations.

That's what I started off this thread with. Humans undoubtedly have some influence over their sexuality, but I don't think it extends to actual sexual preference- you can't change who you like. You can, however, influence your sexual behavior.

I think your personal experiences can also modify who you're attracted to. Just like my example of my dislike for oranges; a particular experience, or set of experiences, can change your personal preferences. How your preferences change (or if they do at all) will be largely influenced by your personality and how you choose to react to different situations.


I think you misunderstand me. You, as a bisexual person, are attracted to both men and women. Fine. But, other people are attracted exclusively to men. That much doesn't change in them, they simply aren't sexually attracted to women. I don't argue that there is an immutable sexuality fore every person. What I believe is that each person has a niche they need to fill for themselves along the sexual continuum.

And I'm saying that no, there is not one niche for each person. One person can move along the continuum. The spot you occupy at age 20 may not be the same as where you are at age 30.

I don't think many people will move from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other extreme end, just like I don't think there are many people who will go from being completely and utterly shy to being total and radical extroverts. But I think MOST people move somewhat, and I think there probably are some people who move a lot.


I also don't see any issue with pubertal sexual development. Puberty is when all sex drives develop and solidify - that much is known by science. I reason that the same is true for homosexuality. Now, those people who have changing sexual appetites, I don't believe are changing their sexual views. I believe that it is inherent in a person the extent to which they are attracted to the genders.

And I'm telling you that your beliefs do not match up with reality. I am a human being (I'm 99.9% sure on that one), and my "sexual views" have changed since puberty.

Science most certainly does NOT say that sex drive "solidifies" during puberty; indeed, it says very much the opposite. Our sex drive and our sexual urges during puberty almost never resemble the urges and drives that we have later in life.


Following behavioral psychology, our sexual behavior in those areas is defined by how we are raised and taught.

And you stop learning and growing at puberty, do you?

Look, I agree with you that sexuality is largely shaped by environment and experiences. I just don't think there's any point at which this shaping stops, short of the time of death. I know that my place on the "continuum" of sexual orientation has shifted plenty since puberty, and I expect it will continue to do so throughout my life.

I think this stems from the ongoing debate in the USA of whether gayness is a choice or not. Supporters of equal rights for gays and lesbians always seem to take the defensive and say that being gay is not a choice, and that you shouldn't discriminate against someone for something that isn't a choice.

They must probably dislike what you say because it might make it seem as if one has a conscious influence over his sexuality. I always rail at that stance. This is a false debate. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Whether sexuality changes or not is irrelevant. This issue is, and always has been, about bigotry, not so-called immorality of sexuality.


I've been meaning to address this. To a point, you are absolutely correct. We shouldn't worry about what choices a person makes when those choices harm no one.

However, that is not how the law has ever seen it. The courts have long held that those things which are choices can be "discriminated against" with much less reason than those things which are not. Something which is biologically inherent, but invokes no biological differences that are important to the law, such as ethnicity, cannot be changed - and is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny when used as a basis for discrimination.

Something that is biologically inherent, with clear biological differences, such as biological sex, is subjected to slightly less scrutiny - if the discrimination is a result of the biological differences. ((An example would be sex-specific bathrooms)).

Something that is a choice, such as mode of dress or the joining of a given organization, is subjected to the least strict scrutiny - rational basis. And by rational basis, the courts don't actually mean truly rational. They mean that, if the government can give a reason, even if the reason itself is silly, the law will stand as constitutional, so long as a person can choose to change the aspect of themselves under question.

So, from a legal point of view, the idea of choice vs. non-choice is very relevant. We can certainly argue that it shouldn't be, but there always have been and most likely always will be laws which many will consider unnecessary - laws which regulate something that harms no one, but is seen as the cultural norm.

This thread is gay.

(+1 post)
(-1 brain cell)

I've been meaning to address this. To a point, you are absolutely correct. We shouldn't worry about what choices a person makes when those choices harm no one.

However, that is not how the law has ever seen it. The courts have long held that those things which are choices can be "discriminated against" with much less reason than those things which are not. Something which is biologically inherent, but invokes no biological differences that are important to the law, such as ethnicity, cannot be changed - and is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny when used as a basis for discrimination.

Something that is biologically inherent, with clear biological differences, such as biological sex, is subjected to slightly less scrutiny - if the discrimination is a result of the biological differences. ((An example would be sex-specific bathrooms)).

Something that is a choice, such as mode of dress or the joining of a given organization, is subjected to the least strict scrutiny - rational basis. And by rational basis, the courts don't actually mean truly rational. They mean that, if the government can give a reason, even if the reason itself is silly, the law will stand as constitutional, so long as a person can choose to change the aspect of themselves under question.

So, from a legal point of view, the idea of choice vs. non-choice is very relevant. We can certainly argue that it shouldn't be, but there always have been and most likely always will be laws which many will consider unnecessary - laws which regulate something that harms no one, but is seen as the cultural norm.
Pretty much, yeah, except I don't agree that we should resign ourselves to always having to put up with stupid intrusive laws.

Pretty much, yeah, except I don't agree that we should resign ourselves to always having to put up with stupid intrusive laws.
Seconded. If the laws are stupid, change them.

There is no reason discrimination should be accepted ; even if the reaosn for discrimination is something that a person can change. That state of mind leads to extreme conformism, and tyranny of the majority. Any social norm, no matter how stupid and harmful to minorities it may be, can be justified using that rationale.

You guys who live in the USA need to stop putting up with all that crap you're being handed. Just because a law says something doesn't mean it's set in stone and should be viewed with a fatalistic point of views. Laws can get overturned, re-written, or cancelled.

Ok now tell me this.

Can you be "forced" to not feel hunger? Can you be "forced" to not feel thirst?
Yes, monks and shit do it all the time... it is proof that all you need is a strong mind and an indomitable will.

Yes, monks and shit do it all the time... it is proof that all you need is a strong mind and an indomitable will.
First of all, WOOHOO, the Big Gay Thread is back!

But secondly, how the hell do you know that those monks don't FEEL hunger? They have the will to not ACT on their hunger, but how do you know they do not feel it?

You guys who live in the USA need to stop putting up with all that crap you're being handed. Just because a law says something doesn't mean it's set in stone and should be viewed with a fatalistic point of views. Laws can get overturned, re-written, or cancelled.
Hey, I'm doing my part. It's not my fault that the Repugs have figured out that they can steal elections whenever they want and nobody does a damn thing to stop them...I've been screaming about this bullshit since before the first Chimp term!

Hells yeah!!!!! Join me brother and together we will purify humanity of it's sins!!!

Your excess of pride is a sin. Your excess of hatred is a sin. Your absence of compassion and humility are sins. Your presumption to know and speak the will of a God beyond human knowledge is a sin. It's easy to call yourself 'righteous' when you wilfully overlook your own plethora of failings. If you want a cleansing, I'd propose you start by putting the gun to your own head and blowing out your wasted grey matter.

If you want to use religion to back up your own petty, pathetic, small-minded bigotry, then you should examine the benign spirit of that religion instead of selectively focusing on the parts that you interpret as validating your hatred.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

Yes, monks and shit do it all the time... it is proof that all you need is a strong mind and an indomitable will.

They are still thirsty and hungry, however.

Can you (assuming you aren't in the closet) stop lusting after women?

I didn't think so.

Your excess of pride is a sin. Your excess of hatred is a sin. Your absence of compassion and humility are sins. Your presumption to know and speak the will of a God beyond human knowledge is a sin. It's easy to call yourself 'righteous' when you wilfully overlook your own plethora of failings. If you want a cleansing, I'd propose you start by putting the gun to your own head and blowing out your wasted grey matter.

If you want to use religion to back up your own petty, pathetic, small-minded bigotry, then you should examine the benign spirit of that religion instead of selectively focusing on the parts that you interpret as validating your hatred.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

Damn straight.

Can you (assuming you aren't in the closet) stop lusting after women?

And assuming the poster is male...

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

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


Look MAH! Ima on da innernat!

Don't feed the trolls people!


* I know I know. I just did. But I can't help it! *

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!

Hey! I think I know you. Where do you live?

Damn straight.
Pun intended?

This thread is gay.

(+1 post)
(-1 brain cell)

Liar! Everybody knows you have to have a lobotomy to post on the general!

Being gay or lesbian is a normal state. Sometimes I think that it's actually marriage that is an abnormal state. When we evolved from Gorilla, did gorilla get married?!? No. We should just have sex when we feel like it, and have kids when we decide, not when we are forced to.

And assuming the poster is male...
I dunno. I can almost see them being a lesbian.

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

forsooth ????? Wow ...thats gay !
:p

Being gay or lesbian is a normal state. Sometimes I think that it's actually marriage that is an abnormal state. When we evolved from Gorilla, did gorilla get married?!? No. We should just have sex when we feel like it, and have kids when we decide, not when we are forced to.
Actually, we evolved from chimps, not gorillas.

Marriage doesn't force anyone to have kids. Only the Pope and other fundies think marriage equals being "forced" to procreate. Most sane human beings marry out of love, and for a majority of them, children are included in their lives.

But the majority of married couples also buy a house for their family; however, getting married doesn't involve necessarily buying a house. The same is true of children.

Some of us just want to find a person to share the rest of our lives with, and have the government, families, religious organisations, etc. recognize the pledge we make to spend our lives together. That's what marriage is about.

Some of us just want to find a person to share the rest of our lives with, and have the government, families, religious organisations, etc. recognize the pledge we make to spend our lives together. That's what marriage is about.No no no! The 40,000-50,000 year old concept of marriage was invented by the Christian Bible Jesus Ghost God. To say otherwise is blasphemy so you need to die now...

Religious fundies... What is it about equal rights that bother you so? No one is forcing you to marry someone against your will. No one's even asking you to like teh ebul gay. Just leave other people alone, that's all.

No no no! The 40,000-50,000 year old concept of marriage was invented by the Christian Bible Jesus Ghost God. To say otherwise is blasphemy so you need to die now...

Indeed, you speak words of wisdom.

Nobody in his sane mind would dispute that... or the fact that until very recently, marriage was more of a contract whose object was a man's possession of his wife than anything else. You're right, we must return to the traditionnal definition of marriage: those damned women MUST be sent back to their kitchen and endless spawning of our progeniture! We must teach them we men OWN them! That we can contract to marry them without their consent, just by asking their father, THE PREVIOUS OWNER!

BWahahahaha!


(Or we could just stop this nonsense about traditions and shit, and just go with the flow of people who marry out of love. Which will it be? Only time will tell)

Actually, we evolved from chimps, not gorillas.

Marriage doesn't force anyone to have kids. Only the Pope and other fundies think marriage equals being "forced" to procreate. Most sane human beings marry out of love, and for a majority of them, children are included in their lives.

But the majority of married couples also buy a house for their family; however, getting married doesn't involve necessarily buying a house. The same is true of children.

Some of us just want to find a person to share the rest of our lives with, and have the government, families, religious organisations, etc. recognize the pledge we make to spend our lives together. That's what marriage is about.

I still don't see the point of marriage. Hopefully, one day it will be abolished altogether and children will be brought up by the entire "village."

I still don't see the point of marriage. Hopefully, one day it will be abolished altogether and children will be brought up by the entire "village."Hopefully people will one day find more important things to worry about, than whether or not they should be interfering in the lives of others without invitation.

I still don't see the point of marriage. Hopefully, one day it will be abolished altogether and children will be brought up by the entire "village."

Don't have a girlfriend eh?

Marriage is an old fashion to preserve the specie.
Marriage was controlled by churches to avoid family relationships and degenerescence.

It seems marriage is not up to date. Churches have new jobs to do.

Gay marriages? A bit late for the sodomites to show they exist and they want to manipulate others. A bit late to say they procreate without love, that important factor to rise kids.

Man is essentially make of animality (apart Jews and Muslims*) and their attitude to procreate is linked to that "love" feeling.

The only animal to not care of its progeniture is the man in too many cases.
That's where churches had their place in society to show these demons made of human blood without love.
Whatever how is the message given, the essentiality has been through.
And please do not tell me you are smart, that's the new illness of the century to justify our wars, the poverty.


* as said in their own scriptures


The High Priest
- I love you and I am an Hypocritical guy -

Marriage is an old fashion to preserve the specie.
Marriage was controlled by churches to avoid family relationships and degenerescence.

It seems marriage is not up to date. Churches have new jobs to do.

Gay marriages? A bit late for the sodomites to show they exist and they want to manipulate others. A bit late to say they procreate without love, that important factor to rise kids.

Man is essentially make of animality (apart Jews and Muslims*) and their attitude to procreate is linked to that "love" feeling.

The only animal to not care of its progeniture is the man in too many cases.
That's where churches had their place in society to show these demons made of human blood without love.
Whatever how is the message given, the essentiality has been through.
And please do not tell me you are smart, that's the new illness of the century to justify our wars, the poverty.


* as said in their own scriptures


The High Priest
- I love you and I am an Hypocritical guy -
Wow. Such stupidity must be satire. Where to begin? Ah, yes. Plenty of other species (read - all of them) survive without marriage. Other than that, I found it very difficult understanding what you were babbling on about.

Wow. Such stupidity must be satire.I think the "I love you & I'm a hypocritical guy" was a dead giveaway.

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

I hate fundies and I'm strongly for the normalization of gays like anyone else, but I think there are some natural aspects to declaring homosexuality a sin. I don't think it was simply a choice of which lifestyle to pick and the oppressive religious leaders at the time picked to prefer heterosexuality.

I'm strongly for the normalization of gays like anyone else,Normalization? Just what the hell is that supposed to mean?but I think there are some natural aspects to declaring homosexuality a sinI'm guessing you mean besides the usual authoritarian stunt of holding on to power by vilifying some arbirtary demographic that's too small to ever pose a serious threat?I don't think it was simply a choice of which lifestyle to pickBe gay. Now. Go fall in love with someone of your own sex. If it's a lifestyle, you can prove it by adopting it for a couple of years. If you can't do that, then kindly clubber yourself senseless with your keyboard, instead of posting your idiot prejudice :upyours:

Actually, we evolved from chimps, not gorillas.

Actually, no we didn't. We didn't evolve from any of the modern apes. We share a common ancestor with them.

Think of it like your cousins. You share a common ancestor, but you aren't "descended" from your cousin. Unless you're from the Deep South, in which case there is nothing I can do for you.

Religious fundies... What is it about equal rights that bother you so? No one is forcing you to marry someone against your will. No one's even asking you to like teh ebul gay. Just leave other people alone, that's all.
What bothers them about gay marriage is obvious:

These are the people who, whenever they aren't bashing gays, are bashing women. They are the ones telling women that they've got to be housebots who never enjoy sex and who crank out babies until their uterus bloody well walks out on them. They are the ones preaching that women have to lick men's boots and like it.

But what if it were legal for women to enter into relationships with each other?! What if two women could adopt a kid together, or could go to a sperm bank and get pregnant, and would be able to make a family all by themselves?! What if women could get it on with a person who actually gives a shit about their orgasm, and knows where the clitoris is at? WHAT THEN?

WHAT WOMAN WOULD PUT UP WITH A FUNDIE MAN?!?!?!

WHAT WOMAN WOULD PUT UP WITH A FUNDIE MAN?!?!?!All the more reason not to bother the non-straights. The fundies all wants to die & go to heaven, right?
So why keep perpetuating the "born sinner" shite? If those death-cultists weren't such hypocrites, they'd be all for dying out.

Be a good fundie! Fight for equal rights!

My Dog I'm tired of religious people. No offence to you moderates, but your peers really give you a bad name.

WHAT WOMAN WOULD PUT UP WITH A FUNDIE MAN?!?!?!

Quite a few I fear. Women can be fundies too.

All the more reason not to bother the non-straights. The fundies all wants to die & go to heaven, right?
So why keep perpetuating the "born sinner" shite? If those death-cultists weren't such hypocrites, they'd be all for dying out.

Nah, they've got a great racket going. They psychologically brutalize their female children from birth, basically growing them to be abuse victims, and then sell them girls off whenever Daddy sees a good business opportunity. It's a nice way to get around the pesky anti-slavery laws we've got in the US.

Quite a few I fear. Women can be fundies too.That's why it's so impotent to go to Iraq to teach them about 'freedom' and why it's so impotent for the IMF to demand equal rights initivs in African nations, as a prerequisite of deals.

Dog knows, the good USians don't need to teach themselves what personal responsibility & personal liberty is. Christianity.. The ultimate abdication of ethics & personal responsibility.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, hiding behind some dusty old book of lies & prejudice.

forsooth ????? Wow ...thats gay !
:p
But I like the word forsooth...and I'm not...gay.:( Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Well, first of all being a gay doesn't make you sub-human or an animal. Beimg gay is sometimes a natural thing because of the DNA. Being Gay isn't wrong, no not at all. The problem is what they do and what they want to do.
First of all Gay Marriage is an unatural thing. It isn't right for two people of the same gender to marry, it goes against nature itself as is shown by the fact that they can't have children not because the woman or the man is incapable of but because it is so not natural that they can't procreate.
Secondly, Gay Adoption is another monstrous idea. People claim that being Gay is natural, well, imagine this scenario, how difficult would it be for a kid not to become gay if he had two gay parents, so we start creating gays. So these ideas must be stopped.
Thirdly altought there are many geniune cases of real gays, there are a large number that are gay becuase they are 'perverse and like to experiment with their sexualit and are filled with lustful thoughts'.
and don't take this as an offense because its true and they know its true.
Fourthly, Gay practices often lead to STD'S and AIDS more than in hetrosexuals. This besides the fact that these "practices" are totally obcene and disgusting.
If you give them one right they will want another and another and with each right more gays and more gays, and some yes do it because they say "I want to f*** a man" as he said an he knows it. So we end up with more immoral practices and demoralistion of society and more deaths from AIDS.
I am not saying that gays should be killed or treated as sub-human, I am saying that their practices should be treated as such.

First of all Gay Marriage is an unatural thing. It isn't right for two people of the same gender to marry, it goes against nature itself as is shown by the fact that they can't have children not because the woman or the man is incapable of but because it is so not natural that they can't procreate.

So you support banning infertile couples from marrying? And you also would support a law banning marriages that include women who are past menopause? And you also support laws restricting marriage to only those couples who intend to produce biological children?


Secondly, Gay Adoption is another monstrous idea. People claim that being Gay is natural, well, imagine this scenario, how difficult would it be for a kid not to become gay if he had two gay parents, so we start creating gays. So these ideas must be stopped.

You need to make up your mind. Either being gay is encoded in DNA (as you originally said), or it's something that you can "catch." You can't "catch" DNA from a gay person.


Thirdly altought there are many geniune cases of real gays, there are a large number that are gay becuase they are 'perverse and like to experiment with their sexualit and are filled with lustful thoughts'.
and don't take this as an offense because its true and they know its true.

And there aren't any heterosexuals who are perverse or like to experiment? Lustful thoughts are confined to the fags, are they?


Fourthly, Gay practices often lead to STD'S and AIDS more than in hetrosexuals.

Sadly, no. The fastest growing population of new AIDS patients is heterosexual women. The population that is believed to contribute most to the spread of AIDS throughout the world is heterosexual men.


This besides the fact that these "practices" are totally obcene and disgusting.

Ah, the good old "It's icky! Icky poo-poo!" line of argument.


If you give them one right they will want another and another and with each right more gays and more gays, and some yes do it because they say "I want to f*** a man" as he said an he knows it.

I would venture to guess that at least 90% of gay men are interested in fucking other men, yes. So?

So we end up with more immoral practices and demoralistion of society and more deaths from AIDS.

If you're worried about "immoral" practices occuring between consenting adults, you're living on the wrong planet. If you're worried about deaths from AIDS, point your little scolding fingers at the real problem: heterosexual men who frequent prostitutes. They're the demographic that appear to be contributing most to the spread of AIDS right now.


I am not saying that gays should be killed or treated as sub-human, I am saying that their practices should be treated as such.
"I'm not saying that Christians should be killed or treated as subhuman, I'm just saying that being a Christian should be treated as such."

Can you see how stupid it sounds?

"I'm not saying that Christians should be killed or treated as subhuman, I'm just saying that being a Christian should be treated as such."

Can you see how stupid it sounds?Well.. Apart from the idiotic sentence, I'm starting to agree with the sentiment. Christians are apparently harmful to to ohers, so by all means, let's ban the buggers & destroy their teachings.

Too bad we can't co-exist peachefully, but if they really want a pointless confrontation, then let them have it.

So you support banning infertile couples from marrying? And you also would support a law banning marriages that include women who are past menopause? And you also support laws restricting marriage to only those couples who intend to produce biological children?

I never said that they shouhld be banned. They have an acceptable reason while they don't.
You need to make up your mind. Either being gay is encoded in DNA (as you originally said), or it's something that you can "catch." You can't "catch" DNA from a gay person.

As I said, there are some geniune cases, and thats fact, but their are a lot who are gays from their own free will as I have said.And there aren't any heterosexuals who are perverse or like to experiment? Lustful thoughts are confined to the fags, are they?

My dear God, its obvious that there are, and I fully agree and condamn there practices, but we are talking on gays so I said what a lot of gays are, and it seemed you agreed with me.
Sadly, no. The fastest growing population of new AIDS patients is heterosexual women. The population that is believed to contribute most to the spread of AIDS throughout the world is heterosexual men.


Ah, the good old "It's icky! Icky poo-poo!" line of argument.

No it isn't icky poo, line of argument it is the fact the true fact, just tell me whats fun in what they do and maybe I'll agree with you. On my part the thing about it being obscene is that it is unatural and monsrous, also I am including practices of hetrosexual couples which jump the borderline, so that you won't eat me.
I would venture to guess that at least 90% of gay men are interested in fucking other men, yes. So?

But 90% of them became gays to fuck men, so really whats wrong with that? Its really hard to think of an answer really, is it?
If you're worried about "immoral" practices occuring between consenting adults, you're living on the wrong planet. If you're worried about deaths from AIDS, point your little scolding fingers at the real problem: heterosexual men who frequent prostitutes. They're the demographic that appear to be contributing most to the spread of AIDS right now.

I blame them fully also but besides that that is not the subject, If I said that people would think and start saying that I am a Fundemantalist Priest from the Middle-Ages, because if you condamn a lot of people together thats what happens.

"I'm not saying that Christians should be killed or treated as subhuman, I'm just saying that being a Christian should be treated as such."


Can you see how stupid it sounds?

First of all I am Catholic, and secondly can you tell me one obsecene practice, one monstrous thing we Catholics do because to my recollection the only bad thing we do is when we don't defend our religion and live a pagan lifestyle.

Well.. Apart from the idiotic sentence, I'm starting to agree with the sentiment. Christians are apparently harmful to to ohers, so by all means, let's ban the buggers & destroy their teachings.

Too bad we can't co-exist peachefully, but if they really want a pointless confrontation, then let them have it.

Well, now what have we come to, expressing an opinion is now harmful. Now then we should all stop writing because Similization has informed us that expressing your opinion is harmful! You should have been a philosopher!:p

First of all I am Catholic, and secondly can you tell me one obsecene practice, one monstrous thing we Catholics do because to my recollection the only bad thing we do is when we don't defend our religion and live a pagan lifestyle.You condemn & oppress your fellow human beings.

You not only believe in a false deity & worship a false prophet, you try to lure others into your ungodly & amoral way of life.

Get over yourself. If you want to live as you please, don't try to prevent others from doing the same.

Christianity.. The ultimate abdication of ethics & personal responsibility.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, hiding behind some dusty old book of lies & prejudice.

I'm a christian and I find that quite offensive. I mean yes, there is anti-homosexual passages in the bible, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Personally I could care less what your orientation is. Good for you either way. You can't stereotype people jsut because their christian or gay or what have you. Don't place people in to seperate little groups.

And yes I know that some christians are all aboard the Anti-gay train, doesn't mean all of us are like that.

And yes I know that some christians are all aboard the Anti-gay train, doesn't mean all of us are like that.

Question: do you thank God when you performed well, and curse at Satan when you did not ?

You condemn & oppress your fellow human beings.

You not only believe in a false deity & worship a false prophet, you try to lure others into your ungodly & amoral way of life.

Get over yourself. If you want to live as you please, don't try to prevent others from doing the same.

Did I ever prevent a gay from living how he wants? I never used force on anyone or forced anyone so I never prevented anyone from doing anything.

This is my observation and opinion. Many of you arguing for gays lambast the religious for arrogance and ad hominem attacks, closed-mindedness, etc... and then, many of the same people absolutely lambast someone for expressing a differing opinion as automatically unelightened or closed-minded. I saw a "STFU!!!!" as a response to a reasonably logical post of why someone thought homosexuality was unnatural.

I'm convinced that many "open-minded" people are only open-minded to those who say there is no right & wrong. It seems to me they are all too often closed-minded against those with a less post-modern philosophy.

As for me, I don't care what you do in your bedroom. But I do think it's ridiculous how hypocritically superior an air many of the opinionated "pro-gay" posters have. If you're going to criticise the opposition for that attitude, you better damn well be sure you're not expressing it yourself.

Well, now what have we come to, expressing an opinion is now harmful. Now then we should all stop writing because Similization has informed us that expressing your opinion is harmful! You should have been a philosopher!:pI take it you don't actually intend to oppress non-straights, but just wanted to talk shit?

Mate, I was trying to provoke you into thinking about the things you say, by applying your limitations to yourself. Do onto others & all that.

I'm absolutely not terribly sorry at all, because normal civil discourse didn't get through to you, so I don't really think you left me much of an option.


I'm a christian and I find that quite offensive. I mean yes, there is anti-homosexual passages in the bible, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Personally I could care less what your orientation is. Good for you either way. You can't stereotype people jsut because their christian or gay or what have you. Don't place people in to seperate little groups.

And yes I know that some christians are all aboard the Anti-gay train, doesn't mean all of us are like that.I know quite a few Christians are in favour of equal rights, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of you 'round NSG.

Since you're identify yourself with a group of people opposed to both equal rights & personal responsibility & liberty, and claim to oppose those concepts because of a book you also identify with, you'll simply have to forgive the occational negative generalisation & grow some thicker skin... Or call kick the repressive totalitarians out of your religion.

You condemn & oppress your fellow human beings.

You not only believe in a false deity & worship a false prophet, you try to lure others into your ungodly & amoral way of life.

Get over yourself. If you want to live as you please, don't try to prevent others from doing the same.
exactly what you just did ? :gundge:

Intolerance starts with the word intolerance...

exactly what you just did ?Yups.Intolerance starts with the word intolerance...Exactly!

Hell, you almost deserve an award for getting the point. If you want others to tolerate you, don't be intolerant of others. Just like Christians, very few non-Christians believe in turning the other cheek.

I will just say this:
(I apologise to George Orwell here)

"Two men bad, Man with woman good."

I will just say this:
(I apologise to George Orwell here)

"Two men bad, Man with woman good."

Yeah...Orwell is turning in his grave right now. To think his writing could be fused wth such bigotry is...


Well '...' just about seems right.

First off, learn to use the quote function or I won't bother responding to you. I'm sorting out your message this one time, to be nice, but I won't do it again.


I never said that they shouhld be banned. They have an acceptable reason while they don't.

Huh?


As I said, there are some geniune cases, and thats fact, but their are a lot who are gays from their own free will as I have said.

I see. This is a fascinating theory. How do you propose we tell the "genuine cases" from the "free will cases"? And should the "genuine cases" get full civil rights, or should all gay people be equally denied civil rights?


My dear God, its obvious that there are, and I fully agree and condamn there practices, but we are talking on gays so I said what a lot of gays are, and it seemed you agreed with me.

I certainly agree that there are people who are lustful and creative in their sexlives, and many of those people happen to be gay. What I'm trying to get at is why you think gay people's sexual activities are obscene enough to warrant violations of their civil rights, yet straight people's activities are not.


No it isn't icky poo, line of argument it is the fact the true fact, just tell me whats fun in what they do and maybe I'll agree with you.

Well, let's see: do you enjoy orgasms? Then congratulations, you enjoy the same thing that gay people enjoy!


On my part the thing about it being obscene is that it is unatural and monsrous,

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Hence, it is not unnatural. Saying "it is obscene because it is monstrous" is meaningless.


also I am including practices of hetrosexual couples which jump the borderline, so that you won't eat me.

Honey, I wouldn't eat you if you paid me. ;)


But 90% of them became gays to fuck men, so really whats wrong with that? Its really hard to think of an answer really, is it?

Did you become straight so that you could fuck women? When did you make this decision?


I blame them fully also but besides that that is not the subject,

First off, you clearly do NOT blame them equally, because you are saying that homosexual behavior is specifically wrong or should disqualify homosexuals from holding equal civil rights because homosexuality spreads STDs. Heterosexuality is responsible for a far greater percentage of STD infections.

If STD infection rates are going to be part of your argument, then the only possible conclusion is that lesbians should be the only couples allowed to marry (since their rates of STD infection are much much lower than gay male couples or hetero couples).


If I said that people would think and start saying that I am a Fundemantalist Priest from the Middle-Ages, because if you condamn a lot of people together thats what happens.

Don't be a chicken. If you think gya people deserve condemnation, then bloody well say so. Don't wuss out and whine about how people will pick on you for being a bigot.


First of all I am Catholic, and secondly can you tell me one obsecene practice, one monstrous thing we Catholics do because to my recollection the only bad thing we do is when we don't defend our religion and live a pagan lifestyle.
Let me see if I understand this right:

The only bad thing a Catholic can do is fail to defend their religion?

Did I ever prevent a gay from living how he wants? I never used force on anyone or forced anyone so I never prevented anyone from doing anything.
Do you support laws that prevent homosexuals from entering legal marriage contracts?

This is my observation and opinion. Many of you arguing for gays lambast the religious for arrogance and ad hominem attacks, closed-mindedness, etc... and then, many of the same people absolutely lambast someone for expressing a differing opinion as automatically unelightened or closed-minded. I saw a "STFU!!!!" as a response to a reasonably logical post of why someone thought homosexuality was unnatural.

I'm convinced that many "open-minded" people are only open-minded to those who say there is no right & wrong. It seems to me they are all too often closed-minded against those with a less post-modern philosophy.

The clue phone is ringing. Please do pick it up.

I'm not going to be "tolerant" or "open-minded" about homophobia, any more than I'm going to be "tolerant" or "open-minded" about the "opinions" of people who think the Jews deserved to get gassed. I'm not going to pretend like I respect somebody's belief that blacks are an inferior race. Why the hell should I be "open-minded" toward homophobes?

I support everybody's right to have their opinion. I support their right to express that opinion. I will fight to protect their right to have and express their opinions. But at no point does this mean that OTHER people don't have the right to tell them they're a fuckwit for posting some blithering nonsense about how homosexuality is "unnatural" or how homosexuality causes disease. Those statements are as false as claiming that the world is flat, and there's no reason for anybody to nod and smile and pretend they're valid "perspectives."


As for me, I don't care what you do in your bedroom. But I do think it's ridiculous how hypocritically superior an air many of the opinionated "pro-gay" posters have. If you're going to criticise the opposition for that attitude, you better damn well be sure you're not expressing it yourself.
Dude, the criticism is for people who want to refuse gay citizens their civil rights. It's not hypocritical to criticize that, unless you turn around and argue that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed civil rights.

Well, first of all being a gay doesn't make you sub-human or an animal. Beimg gay is sometimes a natural thing because of the DNA.

Being gay is always a natural thing - since it occurs in nature. The only way for it to be unnatural would be for it to somehow occur/be caused by something outside of the universe.

Being Gay isn't wrong, no not at all. The problem is what they do and what they want to do.

"What they want to do" is part of being gay, my dear. If you are attracted to the same sex, then you want to have sex with member of the same sex.

First of all Gay Marriage is an unatural thing.

No more or less than any marriage. It occurs in nature - ie. in this universe - so it is clearly natural. Marriage is a social and legal construct human beings have placed upon themselves. How is it any more "unnatural" for two men to want to live as a single entity than it is for a man and a woman?

It isn't right for two people of the same gender to marry, it goes against nature itself as is shown by the fact that they can't have children not because the woman or the man is incapable of but because it is so not natural that they can't procreate.

How does procreation relate to marriage? Do you have to be married to procreate? Do you have to procreate to be married? Do you advocate keeping all couples who cannot or will not ever procreate from being married? Do you realize that the vast majority of the legal protections afforded to those who are married have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation and everything to do with the situation in which two people decide to live as a single entity?

Secondly, Gay Adoption is another monstrous idea. People claim that being Gay is natural,

Yes, you claimed that. You also claimed it had to do with genetics. So how exactly could being adopted by a gay parent change your genetics?

well, imagine this scenario, how difficult would it be for a kid not to become gay if he had two gay parents, so we start creating gays. So these ideas must be stopped.

Actually, studies have been done on this, my dear. A child raised by gay parents is no more or less likely to be gay than a child raised by two straight parents, and vice versa. In fact, most gay persons are raised by straight parents!

Thirdly altought there are many geniune cases of real gays, there are a large number that are gay becuase they are 'perverse and like to experiment with their sexualit and are filled with lustful thoughts'.
and don't take this as an offense because its true and they know its true.

Really? You can force yourself to be attracted exclusively to members of the same sex simply by experimentation? Interesting....

Fourthly, Gay practices often lead to STD'S and AIDS more than in hetrosexuals. This besides the fact that these "practices" are totally obcene and disgusting.

(a) Explain then, why at last count, the fastest growing population of HIV-positive people were straight women?

(b) What "practices" do homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals do not? Oral sex? Nope, straight people do that too. Anal sex? Nope, straight people do that too.

If you give them one right they will want another

Most people want equal rights with their fellow human beings. Is there really anything wrong with that?

I saw a "STFU!!!!" as a response to a reasonably logical post of why someone thought homosexuality was unnatural.

Let's be honest here, there is no "reasonably logical" way to state that homosexuality is unnatural. If something occurs within nature - within the universe - it is natural, by definition.

No it isn't icky poo, line of argument it is the fact the true fact, just tell me whats fun in what they do and maybe I'll agree with you.

What's fun in what you do? You find it disgusting? Ok. I bet homosexuals find what you do with your partner equally disgusting. You know why? Because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex!

But 90% of them became gays to fuck men,

You've got things backwards, my dear. Homosexuals men are not gay because they fuck men. They fuck men because they are gay.

Did you "become straight" to fuck members of the opposite sex? Or do you find yourself attracted to members of the opposite sex because you are straight?

First of all I am Catholic, and secondly can you tell me one obsecene practice, one monstrous thing we Catholics do because to my recollection the only bad thing we do is when we don't defend our religion and live a pagan lifestyle.

The Catholic church has been responsible for all sorts of monstrosities over the years. The most recent would be their cover-up of priets who molest young children - bribing the chidren and their parents not to bring charges and then simply moving the priest to a new parish.

Are all Catholics party to this? Of course not, but these are things done by the Catholic church.

Since you're identify yourself with a group of people opposed to both equal rights & personal responsibility & liberty, and claim to oppose those concepts because of a book you also identify with, you'll simply have to forgive the occational negative generalisation & grow some thicker skin... Or call kick the repressive totalitarians out of your religion.

How exactly do you "kick someone out of" a religion? If I want to call myself Buddhist, despite not practicing Buddhism, I can do so, and no one can really stop me. It isn't like many religions are killing heretics these days, at least in 1st-world countries (and I would say this is a good thing). I don't identify with people who are opposed to equal rights, personal responsibility, or liberty. I identify with those who follow the teachings of Christ.

How exactly do you "kick someone out of" a religion? If I want to call myself Buddhist, despite not practicing Buddhism, I can do so, and no one can really stop me. It isn't like many religions are killing heretics these days, at least in 1st-world countries (and I would say this is a good thing). I don't identify with people who are opposed to equal rights, personal responsibility, or liberty. I identify with those who follow the teachings of Christ.Forgive my exasperation. I'm just sick & tired of hypocritical fascists, who deny the rights of others but cry foul when someone turns the table on them - which is what I did & what lead to the post you quoted.

You & I both know they're no more Christian than I am, just like National Socialists aren't anymore socialist than the Bush administration, and so on.

I constantly see people bitch about moderate & progressive Muslims not distancing themselves enough from the Islamofascist few. Sadly, the same thing could be said about the self-proclaimed Christians on this board. The only notable exceptions I can think of, are Jocabia & yourself.

And no. Fence sitters on equal rights issues, like the guy whose feelings I hurt, will always be unacceptable to me. You're either for equal rights, or a damn menace. There's nothing praiseworthy about a "Well.. OK, let's oppress demographic X. I'm sure it's fine" attitude. It's every bit as inhuman & vile as actively opposing equal rights.

Do you support laws that prevent homosexuals from entering legal marriage contracts?

Yes, I support the banning of civil unions between gay people.

Yes, I support the banning of civil unions between gay people.

On what basis ? Religious commandments have no place in law, unless you live in a theocracy - so what are your non-religious reasons ?

I see. This is a fascinating theory. How do you propose we tell the "genuine cases" from the "free will cases"? And should the "genuine cases" get full civil rights, or should all gay people be equally denied civil rights?

Thats the problem, thats why its influence must be stopped. No "genuine cases" should not be granted civil rights in my opinion, in my opinion they should not have also a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex.

I certainly agree that there are people who are lustful and creative in their sexlives, and many of those people happen to be gay. What I'm trying to get at is why you think gay people's sexual activities are obscene enough to warrant violations of their civil rights, yet straight people's activities are not.

Wait a second here, Gay peoples activities are more obcene since they are between two men/women. And I also believe that straight people activities when they cross the border are obcene as much as the gays, but the gays are always obsecene.

Well, let's see: do you enjoy orgasms? Then congratulations, you enjoy the same thing that gay people enjoy!

First of all I have never been in a sexual relationship (circa:15yrs) and secondly when in a loving relationship of a man and a woman it isn't wrong, but in a gay relationship it is wrong.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Hence, it is not unnatural. Saying "it is obscene because it is monstrous" is meaningless.

Yes, but because we are not animals we have the will power to restrain it to the point were no sexual activity between gay partners exist, because we are one level higher than the animals.


Did you become straight so that you could fuck women? When did you make this decision?

No, I was born straight. I was referring to those that decide to become gays.

First off, you clearly do NOT blame them equally, because you are saying that homosexual behavior is specifically wrong or should disqualify homosexuals from holding equal civil rights because homosexuality spreads STDs. Heterosexuality is responsible for a far greater percentage of STD infections.

Thats obvious though because there are much more hetrosexuals than gays, but if they were equal in numbers there would be much much more from gays. Besides the fact that these spread because the authorities unwillingness to clamp down on things like prostitiution and pornography.

If STD infection rates are going to be part of your argument, then the only possible conclusion is that lesbians should be the only couples allowed to marry (since their rates of STD infection are much much lower than gay male couples or hetero couples).

I was just stating another reason in the whole lot.

Don't be a chicken. If you think gya people deserve condemnation, then bloody well say so. Don't wuss out and whine about how people will pick on you for being a bigot.

I have fully bloody condamned their practices and those who want to introduce and have already introduced them.And believe me on topics like these its a liberals paradise and they tear you alive, Believe me.

Let me see if I understand this right:

The only bad thing a Catholic can do is fail to defend their religion

No, I was just saying a very bad thing that a Catholic can do. (I was including when I said defend also through example, and through his pride of being Catholic, so don't get me wrong).

On what basis ? Religious commandments have no place in law, unless you live in a theocracy - so what are your non-religious reasons ?

Non- religious reasons are simply the demoralisation of society which means on a social non-religious level less respect and values in society.

Non- religious reasons are simply the demoralisation of society which means on a social non-religious level less respect and values in society.

Please elaborate ? How does letting two adults profess and formalise their desire to form a common household reduce respect and values in society?

Yes, I support the banning of civil unions between gay people.

This statement is incompatible with this the other one you made:

Did I ever prevent a gay from living how he wants? I never used force on anyone or forced anyone so I never prevented anyone from doing anything.

You support forcing your religious views upon homosexuals - keeping them from entering legal marriage protections.

Thats the problem, thats why its influence must be stopped. No "genuine cases" should not be granted civil rights in my opinion, in my opinion they should not have also a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex.

Why not? If you are allowed to seek a loving relationship with someone you are attracted to, why should homosexuals not have the same right?

Wait a second here, Gay peoples activities are more obcene since they are between two men/women. And I also believe that straight people activities when they cross the border are obcene as much as the gays, but the gays are always obsecene.

You really need to stop contradicting yourself. The first and second sentences are direct contradictions of each other. They cannot be equally obscene and more obscene at the same time.

Meanwhile, why does a relationship enjoyed between two persons of the same sex suddenly become extra-super-duper obscene?

First of all I have never been in a sexual relationship (circa:15yrs)

Or masturbated?

and secondly when in a loving relationship of a man and a woman it isn't wrong, but in a gay relationship it is wrong.

Why?

Yes, but because we are not animals we have the will power to restrain it to the point were no sexual activity between gay partners exist, because we are one level higher than the animals.

All human beings can keep from engaging in sexual activity - whether gay or straight. Why should only homosexuals be stopped from finding a loving sexual relationship?

No, I was born straight. I was referring to those that decide to become gays.

If there is a decision to make, then we are all faced with it and we all make that decision. You cannot logically state that you were born with your sexuality but others choose theirs. Either sexuality develops without a choice in the matter, or it does not.

So, when exactly did the sexuality fairy visit you and ask you whether you wanted to be gay or straight?

Forgive my exasperation. I'm just sick & tired of hypocritical fascists, who deny the rights of others but cry foul when someone turns the table on them - which is what I did & what lead to the post you quoted.

You & I both know they're no more Christian than I am, just like National Socialists aren't anymore socialist than the Bush administration, and so on.

I constantly see people bitch about moderate & progressive Muslims not distancing themselves enough from the Islamofascist few. Sadly, the same thing could be said about the self-proclaimed Christians on this board. The only notable exceptions I can think of, are Jocabia & yourself.

And no. Fence sitters on equal rights issues, like the guy whose feelings I hurt, will always be unacceptable to me. You're either for equal rights, or a damn menace. There's nothing praiseworthy about a "Well.. OK, let's oppress demographic X. I'm sure it's fine" attitude. It's every bit as inhuman & vile as actively opposing equal rights.

Who the hell are you calling fascist? I'm no bloody hypocritical fascist. If I was a fascist I woudn't be a Catholic, so don't say base things. So I am a fundemalitilist now, how nice! It is better to have a little less freedom and more order and sense in life. If we continue in this liberal, lax laid attitude of increase in "social equality" I bet on my life that in 30, 40 years time if the World will still exist, chaos will reign, and I tell you you will regret that you chose to support this liberal ideology which has torn the world apart.

Look I really wish I have the time to answer all your questions, I really wish that I had the patience to repeat myself over and over again, but it is annoying and tiring, so I have decided to give myself a brake, and maybe you will understand what I wrote,maybe.

Look I really wish I have the time to answer all your questions, I really wish that I had the patience to repeat myself over and over again, but it is annoying and tiring, so I have decided to give myself a brake, and maybe you will understand what I wrote,maybe.

You haven't answered any of those questions, so it wouldn't be repeating yourself.

Sounds to me like you have no answers to give.

Who the hell are you calling fascist? I'm no bloody hypocritical fascist. If I was a fascist I woudn't be a Catholic, so don't say base things. So I am a fundemalitilist now, how nice! It is better to have a little less freedom and more order and sense in life. If we continue in this liberal, lax laid attitude of increase in "social equality" I bet on my life that in 30, 40 years time if the World will still exist, chaos will reign, and I tell you you will regret that you chose to support this liberal ideology which has torn the world apart.

Liberal ideology? Oh, you must be referring to the fact that we run our country based on the beliefs of ALL of our nation's religions, no matter how small or insignificant the may seem, whereas if it were up to you we would run the country based on your religion alone. To me that sounds like a theocracy. And a theocracy is merely fascism by a religious sect.

Look I really wish I have the time to answer all your questions, I really wish that I had the patience to repeat myself over and over again, but it is annoying and tiring, so I have decided to give myself a brake, and maybe you will understand what I wrote,maybe.
Yes, yes it is. And repeating it doesn't make any of what you say any more right. Nor does your verbalisation and logic seem to improve with each repetition.

You haven't answered any of those questions, so it wouldn't be repeating yourself.

Sounds to me like you have no answers to give.
The next time a homophobe pokes their nose into one of these threads, I'm going to immediately take bets on how long it will take them to run away under the cover of "not having time for this" or "not wanting to repeat themselves" or "getting picked on by the nasty, nasty tolerant people." The maximum acceptable bet will be 15 posts, since I've yet to see a homophobe make it longer than that without resorting to either a cowardly retreat or childish name-calling.

Please elaborate ? How does letting two adults profess and formalise their desire to form a common household reduce respect and values in society?

I'll try to explain in a simple and short way.(In a form of a Physics practical..hehe.)

Aim= To show how they de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) Gays.
(2.) Media.

Method=(1.) Gays demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) Liberal Media supports them.
(3.) Gay rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of Gays and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that Gay marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

Yours,
James Farrugia

-Maypole Reaserch Centre -

I know this was said a while ago, and I'm not sure how to quote it yet, cuz it was in a quote itself. But someone said to bring up one monstrous thing the Catholics do/have done.
I have a few.
1. The Inquisition
2. The Crusades
3. And recently, the molestation shit.

Do you need anymore? I'm sure I can come up with some if you really want.

The next time a homophobe pokes their nose into one of these threads, I'm going to immediately take bets on how long it will take them to run away under the cover of "not having time for this" or "not wanting to repeat themselves" or "getting picked on by the nasty, nasty tolerant people." The maximum acceptable bet will be 15 posts, since I've yet to see a homophobe make it longer than that without resorting to either a cowardly retreat or childish name-calling.

Oh really, we'll see about that, if you think I am a homophobe, and think that they run out in 15 posts you are really mistaken. Just see the thread in which I posted in about a month ago and see after how much posts I ran out of the thread, more like some 150 posts.

(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".

Care to elaborate on what these "more absurd ideas are?

(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Out culture alreaady has no values or traditions, allowing gays to marry can't take much more away.

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.

Ah, so people born sterile, that's also a choice? because it's not natural, and is an evolutionary dead end.

I'll try to explain in a simple and short way.(In a form of a Physics practical..hehe.)

Aim= To show how they de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) Gays.
(2.) Media.

Method=(1.) Gays demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) Liberal Media supports them.
(3.) Gay rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of Gays and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that Gay marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

Yours,
James Farrugia

-Maypole Reaserch Centre -
Baseless speculation. Points (4.) (5.) are unproven, unlikely, and not even logical. In fact, all credible evidence from Canada, where equal rights were granted to gays, point to the contrary of the conclusion expected by your post.

Thank you. Please try again.

Oh really, we'll see about that, if you think I am a homophobe, and think that they run out in 15 posts you are really mistaken. Just see the thread in which I posted in about a month ago and see after how much posts I ran out of the thread, more like some 150 posts.
So 75% of your 200 posts were arguing against equal rights for gays and lesbians, and still you think you're not homophobic?

Oh really, we'll see about that, if you think I am a homophobe, and think that they run out in 15 posts you are really mistaken. Just see the thread in which I posted in about a month ago and see after how much posts I ran out of the thread, more like some 150 posts.
You already ran out. You already beat a retreat when the gaping holes in your "logic" were exposed. You already have resorted to claiming that people are just not understanding your brilliant arguments, even though they've been demolished by at least three different people on this thread alone.

So, really, I'm not at all worried about losing the bet. :)

But please, prove me wrong. I would love it if there was one single person capable of posting cogent arguments for the homophobe side. Usually I end up having to make their arguments for them, because I can play Devil's Advocate better than they can assemble their own thoughts. It would be a welcome change of pace to see a 'phobe do their homework.

Care to elaborate on what these "more absurd ideas are?



Out culture alreaady has no values or traditions, allowing gays to marry can't take much more away.

Where do you live? Where I live we have lots of values and tradition but they are being eroded.

So 75% of your 200 posts were arguing against equal rights for gays and lesbians, and still you think you're not homophobic?

First of all 95% of my posts were not on gays so your statement is already wrong. Those are not rights, those are privleges.

I've heard many people claim that being gay is not natural. Ok. But, so are a lot of other things. You want to live a completely natural life? I'll help.

Get off this computer, it's unnatural. Get out of your house, that's not natural. Are you wearing shoes? Take those off, unless they're 100% leather, they're unnatural, and even that's pushing it. Clothes? Take those off, they're unnatural. Make-up? All that's gotta go. Glasses/contacts? Take them off. You're probably on a road or sidewalk by now aren't you? Get off that, it's unnatural. Flee to a field, or a forest. Hunt for your food. No weapons though, unless you can find a rock to kill with.

So, yes being gay is unnatural, but then again, so is every single part of our lives. So why pick and choose what parts we'll allow and what parts we won't?

Where do you live? Where I live we have lots of values and tradition but they are being eroded.
Here in Canada we have a lot of values and traditions, and they're doing perfectly fine despite "teh ebil gays!!1!!11!" being allowed to marry four-five years ago.

Nope. No anarchy. No rains of fire. No masses of confused teen fucking the wrong gender. No holy retribution being wrathfully delivered to us. No chaos. Nothing.

Who would've thought?

Where do you live? Where I live we have lots of values and tradition but they are being eroded.

I live in the Bible Belt. Northern Kentucky. Jesus freak central.

First of all 95% of my posts were not on gays so your statement is already wrong. Those are not rights, those are privleges.
Very well. So your posts were about granting extra priviledges to heterosexuals and denying them to gays "because I don't like them"?

And you still maintain you're not homophobic?

When people about conservatives in America, they're actually talking about two groups. There are the business conservatives, the ones who are Republican because Republicanism is good for business. Then there are the christian morality conservatives, the ones who are in the Republican party because of its stance on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
As a liberal, it has always struck me how the moral conservatives never seem to realize what dupes they are in the political arena. The business conservatives use them as political pawns. For the most part, they account for people who, if these issues weren't on the agenda, would otherwise not vote at all or vote democratic. Instead, the Republicans are smart. They harp on these moral issues, issues with no conceivable win-win resolution, to mobilize politically illiterate people to the polls. Do you really think W. cares at all about gay marriage? Don't be stupid. In case you haven't noticed, it only surfaces as an issue on his platform when election day draws closer. The same goes for abortion. I've reported on Capitol Hill politics for years and, like almost anybody else who's done the same, I've seen this pattern a thousand times over. Election draws close, gays and abortion mothers suddenly make the news. As if a sudden plague of gayness and unwed pregnancy is spreading across the nation. It's a ploy! It's a sham.
That said, let's get back to the issue of this thread. Gays. I like gays. Some of my friends are gay. They're not in any significant way different from straight people. They deserve the same rights other citizens enjoy. The right to marry, to adopt children, etc.
Religious conservatives will say the bible outlaws homosexuality. I would point out that the the passage "man shall not lay down with man..." was added to the Bible (yes, added to the Bible) by King James when he ordered the printing of his own edition. By the way, King James was apparently flaming gay and trying to draw attention away from his own indiscretions. If you go back to the old testament, you find the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Well, depending on what edition of the bible (or the Tanakh) you read, that story can vary quite a lot and is more open to interpretation than most are willing to admit (Read "God: A Biography" if you don't believe me.). In short, the biblical argument is worthless. Conservatives use it because it sounds better than just coming out and admitting their own bigotry.
Oy, not enough time to write everything I wanted.
Peace

You already ran out. You already beat a retreat when the gaping holes in your "logic" were exposed. You already have resorted to claiming that people are just not understanding your brilliant arguments, even though they've been demolished by at least three different people on this thread alone.

So, really, I'm not at all worried about losing the bet. :)

But please, prove me wrong. I would love it if there was one single person capable of posting cogent arguments for the homophobe side. Usually I end up having to make their arguments for them, because I can play Devil's Advocate better than they can assemble their own thoughts. It would be a welcome change of pace to see a 'phobe do their homework.


There are three people because there are only a few people today who express themselves on my non-homophobic side because they are afraid of people like you who try to break them in pieces. And as the world is going there are so much of you that you are everywhere. I do my homework, you just don't correct it well.

I've heard many people claim that being gay is not natural.
And they would be wrong, since gay animals are quite frequent in nature. Just look up Manhattan zoo's gay penguins, or any study on the sexuality of mammals, like dolphins, chimps, etc.


Ok. I accept that as fact, for the most part. But, so are a lot of other things. You want to live a completely natural life? I'll help.

Get off this computer, it's unnatural. Get out of your house, that's not natural. Are you wearing shoes? Take those off, unless they're 100% leather, they're unnatural, and even that's pushing it. Clothes? Take those off, they're unnatural. Make-up? All that's gotta go. Glasses/contacts? Take them off. You're probably on a road or sidewalk by now aren't you? Get off that, it's unnatural. Flee to a field, or a forest. Hunt for your food. No weapons though, unless you can find a rock to kill with.

So, yes being gay is unnatural, but then again, so is every single part of our lives. So why pick and choose what parts we'll allow and what parts we won't?
The rest of your post I agree with, though. It's always about pick-and-choosing to justify their own hatred that fundies bring up the so-called "unnatural" argument. Just like the religious argument, actually.

I've heard many people claim that being gay is not natural. Ok. But, so are a lot of other things. You want to live a completely natural life? I'll help.

Get off this computer, it's unnatural. Get out of your house, that's not natural. Are you wearing shoes? Take those off, unless they're 100% leather, they're unnatural, and even that's pushing it. Clothes? Take those off, they're unnatural. Make-up? All that's gotta go. Glasses/contacts? Take them off. You're probably on a road or sidewalk by now aren't you? Get off that, it's unnatural. Flee to a field, or a forest. Hunt for your food. No weapons though, unless you can find a rock to kill with.

So, yes being gay is unnatural, but then again, so is every single part of our lives. So why pick and choose what parts we'll allow and what parts we won't?

There is difference with good unnatural and bad unnatural, and this is bad unnatural. Don't go out of point.

There is difference with good unnatural and bad unnatural, and this is bad unnatural. Don't go out of point.

Whoa. Who's job is it to decide what is good and bad unnatural? Good and bad infers morals. Morals are usually set by religion. And, in case you haven't gotten the memo, here in America, we respect all people's religions, not just Christianity.

If you think about it, cars are a bad unnatural. You're not trying to outlaw them are you?

Very well. So your posts were about granting extra priviledges to heterosexuals and denying them to gays "because I don't like them"?

And you still maintain you're not homophobic?

No, I have gay friends, I speak to them, I don't grab a shotgun and blow their brains.
(Don't know how you managed to read all my posts in less than 10 minutes but anyway, some people read really fast.)

No, I have gay friends, I speak to them, I don't grab a shotgun and blow their brains.
(Don't know how you managed to read all my posts in less than 10 minutes but anyway, some people read really fast.)

They probably won't be your friend much longer if we introduce them to this thread.

I live in the Bible Belt. Northern Kentucky. Jesus freak central.

What religion do they exactly practice, give me the name please. There is a great difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant and other Christian Religions, they have bent a lot of rules and don't take it as an offense, they are not like us, we have a huge number of totally different beliefs, the only religion which agrees with us totally is the Orthodox Church (besides the Pope thing).

They probably won't be your friend much longer if we introduce them to this thread.

Really, I have expressed the same opinions and even offended what they desire and they still respect me and are my friends.

There is difference with good unnatural and bad unnatural, and this is bad unnatural. Don't go out of point.
He's not "out of point". He's stating that you pick and choose freely in order to make your bigotry seem like it stands on some logical evidence. Here's a hint: it doesn't.

There is nothing rational or logical about hating gays or denying them the same rights and priviledges the rest of society gets. All homophobes do is use terms like "unnatural", "abnormal", or religious quotes as SHIELDS to hide their own prejudices and bigotry. It is clearly seen on issues like this: when argued that lots of unnatural things are good, you then arbitrarily that gay is bad, and computers and shoes are good. You're standing in rhetorical quicksands, my dear, and nobody in this forum has any interest in saving you from them.

Know this: You can't possibly win a logical, rational debate on the issue, because your position is based on emotions and irrationnal, unrealistic views of homosexuality. We all already know that. Time for you to acknowledge it too, and go ahead and admit that you oppose equal rights because you personally dislike gays, not because of any rationnal basis.

What religion do they exactly practice, give me the name please. There is a great difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant and other Christian Religions, they have bent a lot of rules and don't take it as an offense, they are not like us, we have a huge number of totally different beliefs, the only religion which agrees with us totally is the Orthodox Church (besides the Pope thing).

I'm agnostic personally.

But, where I live, I daily come into contact with Catholics and Protestants.

No, I have gay friends, I speak to them, I don't grab a shotgun and blow their brains.
(Don't know how you managed to read all my posts in less than 10 minutes but anyway, some people read really fast.)
I wouldn't call myself "friends" with someone I regard as inferior, and undeserving of equal rights and priviledges. I believe you're making this up to switch the topic off your obvious dislike and contempt for gays and lesbians.

I have never bought the "blacks are 3/5 of a person, but I'm not racist because I have black friends" argument. I'm certainly not gonna accept a similar argument on homosexuality.

I wouldn't call myself "friends" with someone I regard as inferior, and undeserving of equal rights and priviledges. I believe you're making this up to switch the topic off your obvious dislike and contempt for gays and lesbians.

I have never bought the "blacks are 3/5 of a person, but I'm not racist because I have black friends" argument. I'm certainly not gonna accept a similar argument on homosexuality.
Damn right. Any person who believes I don't deserve equal rights under the law is NOT my friend. Any person who regards my consentual, loving, adult relationship as inferior or deviant or "unnatural" is NOT my friend.

Any person who would dare to call themselves a friend when they act in that manner is a worm. They're nobody's friend.

He's not "out of point". He's stating that you pick and choose freely in order to make your bigotry seem like it stands on some logical evidence. Here's a hint: it doesn't.

There is nothing rational or logical about hating gays or denying them the same rights and priviledges the rest of society gets. All homophobes do is use terms like "unnatural", "abnormal", or religious quotes as SHIELDS to hide their own prejudices and bigotry. It is clearly seen on issues like this: when argued that lots of unnatural things are good, you then arbitrarily that gay is bad, and computers and shoes are good. You're standing in rhetorical quicksands, my dear, and nobody in this forum has any interest in saving you from them.

Know this: You can't possibly win a logical, rational debate on the issue, because your position is based on emotions and irrationnal, unrealistic views of homosexuality. We all already know that. Time for you to acknowledge it too, and go ahead and admit that you oppose equal rights because you personally dislike gays, not because of any rationnal basis.

Well first of all I have had a negative experience with a gay who tried to "gay me", but anyway so I know what they do. I don't use my relgions as a shield, I use it as a spearhead. You say we supposodley "homophobe" always say unatural, abnormal etc. Well you always say logical rational, and on a scientific basis. Of course I can't win this argument. I can never win it because this battle for my "side" can only be won on the spiritual and cultural level, not on some scientific and all that nonesense which are your excuses to these statements. Besides if you haven't noticed we believe in a lot of things based on evidence and few facts or no facts and this is one of them.

Well first of all I have had a negative experience with a gay who tried to "gay me", but anyway so I know what they do. I don't use my relgions as a shield, I use it as a spearhead. You say we supposodley "homophobe" always say unatural, abnormal etc. Well you always say logical rational, and on a scientific basis. Of course I can't win this argument. I can never win it because this battle for my "side" can only be won on the spiritual and cultural level, not on some scientific and all that nonesense which are your excuses to these statements. Besides if you haven't noticed we believe in a lot of things based on evidence and few facts or no facts and this is one of them.

Ok. Now you pissed me off. You say you don't like gay people, because one gay person hit on you and you ASSUME all gay men are the same?!?!?!?!!??? That's like having a black man try to steal your wallet and then you hate all black people because you assume they all do that!! Personally, I am a gay guy, and I NEVER EVER hit on a guy unless I hear directly from that guy that he is gay. So for you to say you "know what they do" is stereotyping, and proves what a moronic bigot you are.

I wouldn't call myself "friends" with someone I regard as inferior, and undeserving of equal rights and priviledges. I believe you're making this up to switch the topic off your obvious dislike and contempt for gays and lesbians.

I have never bought the "blacks are 3/5 of a person, but I'm not racist because I have black friends" argument. I'm certainly not gonna accept a similar argument on homosexuality.

If you read my posts well you would find that I said that they aren't sub-human thus not inferior. And no I am not making this up, If i didn't have any gay friends I woudn't make it up, and I have dislike yes, only for their practices.
Let me define rascist against a group or race for you.
For example when someone sees a homophobe, he says "That f****** piece of **** of a gay, or something like that, and he uses violence agianst them. I on the other han don't do that, I don't see a gay and begin offending him or go and break his jawbone, so I am no damned homophobe.

If you read my posts well you would find that I said that they aren't sub-human thus not inferior. And no I am not making this up, If i didn't have any gay friends I woudn't make it up, and I have dislike yes, only for their practices.
Let me define rascist against a group or race for you.
For example when someone sees a homophobe, he says "That f****** piece of **** of a gay, or something like that, and he uses violence agianst them. I on the other han don't do that, I don't see a gay and begin offending him or go and break his jawbone, so I am no damned homophobe.

Homophobia
homo=homosexual
phobia=fear
homophobia=fear of homosexuals.
You have a fear of the spread of homosexuality. Therefore you are a homophobe.

Ok. Now you pissed me off. You say you don't like gay people, because one gay person hit on you and you ASSUME all gay men are the same?!?!?!?!!??? That's like having a black man try to steal your wallet and then you hate all black people because you assume they all do that!! Personally, I am a gay guy, and I NEVER EVER hit on a guy unless I hear directly from that guy that he is gay. So for you to say you "know what they do" is stereotyping, and proves what a moronic bigot you are.

I just showed you my simple personal example to show you that you can't expect me to be fully healed of my wounds, not that that is the cause of my opinion on gays and besides that gay who hit on me, we are friends now, and talk reguraly. And don't get all offensive and mad because this will soon flare into a war on both sides if you continue the way you are going, because I am trying not to get pissed of as well.

Well first of all I have had a negative experience with a gay who tried to "gay me", but anyway so I know what they do.

Anecdotal evidence that you knew a gay person who was rude and/or an asshole does not allow you to generalize that all gay persons are rude assholes.

A person trying to "gay" you does not constitute basis to deny all homosexuals equal rights and priviledges. Especially considering the fact that society as a whole FREQUENTLY TRIES TO "STRAIGHTEN OUT" gay persons. So boo hoo for you. Both of these actions are equally wrong, but for a person who maintains that gay people should try to change to conform to the norm, you have no right to whine about one of them trying to convince you to explore your sexuality. Case closed.


I don't use my relgions as a shield, I use it as a spearhead. You say we supposodley "homophobe" always say unatural, abnormal etc. Well you always say logical rational, and on a scientific basis. Of course I can't win this argument. I can never win it because this battle for my "side" can only be won on the spiritual and cultural level, not on some scientific and all that nonesense which are your excuses to these statements. Besides if you haven't noticed we believe in a lot of things based on evidence and few facts or no facts and this is one of them.

No, we do not. Opinion, spirituality, and cultural norms are not, and have never been, except in cases of theocracies and dictatorships, valid bases for writing and enforcing laws.

There is nothing other than your and the other bigot's prejudices justifying treating gays and lesbians like second-rate citizens. A democratic government is seperate from religious and spiritual entities for just that reason. To protect each and every citizen, and take decisions based on facts, science and common sense for the good of all. A government does not make of enforce cultural norms. A government does not take decisions based on the whim of a one of its members. If a government does any of the above, it is a sad, pathetic excuse of a public service.

Homophobia
homo=homosexual
phobia=fear
homophobia=fear of homosexuals.
You have a fear of the spread of homosexuality. Therefore you are a homophobe.

I fear not them in person but their ideas and influence, so if you want to say I am a homophobe go ahead, but you can't call me rascist against them. And if it comes to this there millions upon millions of homophobes, because most people don't want a "gayed" world.

Homophobia
homo=homosexual
phobia=fear
homophobia=fear of homosexuals.
You have a fear of the spread of homosexuality. Therefore you are a homophobe.
Homophobia also means having contempt for homosexuals.

I fear not them in person but their ideas and influence, so if you want to say I am a homophobe go ahead, but you can't call me rascist against them. And if it comes to this there millions upon millions of homophobes, because most people don't want a "gayed" world.

What ideas and influences? Equal treatment under the law?

I'll try to explain in a simple and short way.(In a form of a Physics practical..hehe.)

Aim= To show how they de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) Gays.
(2.) Media.

Method=(1.) Gays demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) Liberal Media supports them.
(3.) Gay rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of Gays and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that Gay marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

Yours,
James Farrugia

-Maypole Reaserch Centre -

You, know, I think I've seen an argument like this before. Let's try it:


Aim= To show how [blacks] de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) [Blacks]
(2.) [Liberals]

Method=(1.) [Blacks] demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) [Liberals] support them.
(3.) [Black] rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of [Blacks] and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that [interracial] marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

I just showed you my simple personal example to show you that you can't expect me to be fully healed of my wounds, not that that is the cause of my opinion on gays and besides that gay who hit on me, we are friends now, and talk reguraly. And don't get all offensive and mad because this will soon flare into a war on both sides if you continue the way you are going, because I am trying not to get pissed of as well.

Excuse me, healed of your wounds? HE CUT YOU TOO!!! HOW DARE HE?!?!
I've had experiences with black people I haven't enojoyed. I've had experiences with Jews that I haven't enjoyed.
I've wanted to kill them before.
That doesn't make me hate Jews or black people.
So neither should the fact that you had a bad experience with one gay person.

I fear not them in person but their ideas and influence, so if you want to say I am a homophobe go ahead, but you can't call me rascist against them. And if it comes to this there millions upon millions of homophobes, because most people don't want a "gayed" world.

Ok. So you know, me marrying a man will not make it a gayed world. Because I can do everything I want right now. The world will not change because of it. Millions of gays won't come out of the closet and run and paint your town rainbow just because they're allowed to marry. Get real.

First of all 95% of my posts were not on gays so your statement is already wrong. Those are not rights, those are privleges.

Homosexuals have a right to equal protection under the law - as do all human beings. If a given protection or priviledge is offered to any citizen, it must also be offered to homosexuals, unless a compelling state interest would keep that from happening.

No one has yet shown a compelling state interest in denying homosexuals equal marriage protections, while all sorts of compelling ineterests for granting such protections can be demonstrated.

I fear not them in person but their ideas and influence, so if you want to say I am a homophobe go ahead, but you can't call me rascist against them. And if it comes to this there millions upon millions of homophobes, because most people don't want a "gayed" world.
You seem under the impression that actually treating gays and lesbians like equal human beings will somehow prompt the majority of the world to just turn around and say "Oh, look, we can be gay now. Sounds like fun." and go ahead and become gay.

Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Giving respect and recognition to gays and lesbians will not cause an increase in the number of gays and lesbians there are. It will, at worst, cause those gays and lesbians who are still in the closet, too afraid to disclose their preferences, to go out openly because they now don't have to face prejudice and bigotry anymore.

Millions of heterosexuals will not magically start to enjoy making out with members of the same sex just because gays and lesbians can get married. It's not a disease. It's not contagious.

Anecdotal evidence that you knew a gay person who was rude and/or an asshole does not allow you to generalize that all gay persons are rude assholes.

A person trying to "gay" you does not constitute basis to deny all homosexuals equal rights and priviledges. Especially considering the fact that society as a whole FREQUENTLY TRIES TO "STRAIGHTEN OUT" gay persons. So boo hoo for you. Both of these actions are equally wrong, but for a person who maintains that gay people should try to change to conform to the norm, you have no right to whine about one of them trying to convince you to explore your sexuality. Case closed.

As I said, before I didn't generalise because of this, my opinion never change before the event and after the event.



No, we do not. Opinion, spirituality, and cultural norms are not, and have never been, except in cases of theocracies and dictatorships, valid bases for writing and enforcing laws.

There is nothing other than your and the other bigot's prejudices justifying treating gays and lesbians like second-rate citizens. A democratic government is seperate from religious and spiritual entities for just that reason. To protect each and every citizen, and take decisions based on facts, science and common sense for the good of all. A government does not make of enforce cultural norms. A government does not take decisions based on the whim of a one of its members. If a government does any of the above, it is a sad, pathetic excuse of a public service.

My friend there is an important thing to learn about democracy:
" Democracy is only good when used right"
So if I have to say it I will say it, so as to be honest.
When democracy isn't being used good I prefer an Authotarian style Goverment, which doesn't murder people torture etc.
As an American president once said:
" The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance".

As I said, before I didn't generalise because of this, my opinion never change before the event and after the event.

You're a liar. You said you didn't like gay people because of that one incident.

My friend there is an important thing to learn about democracy:
" Democracy is only good when used right"
So if I have to say it I will say it, so as to be honest.
When democracy isn't being used good I prefer an Authotarian style Goverment, which doesn't murder people torture etc.
As an American president once said:
" The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance".
If you really crave an authoritarian regime that represses sexual minorities so, then move to Iran. They have a nice theocracy there. I'm sure everyone living under it is very happy, too. Well, except those faggots being buried alive for their crime of loving another man, of course.

Once you start state discrimination against someone, anyone really, you set up a dangerous precedent. You never know who's gonna be next. Might be you.

You're a liar. You said you didn't like gay people because of that one incident.

No you're a liar. I have never said in one of these posts "I dislike" "I Hate" "I wish they were dead" or anything of that sort on gays.

You say we supposodley "homophobe" always say unatural, abnormal etc.

A homophobic person is one who is intolerant of or has an aversion towards homosexuals. You meet the definition quite nicely

Well you always say logical rational, and on a scientific basis. Of course I can't win this argument. I can never win it because this battle for my "side" can only be won on the spiritual and cultural level, not on some scientific and all that nonesense which are your excuses to these statements.

If you cannot win your argument logically and empirically, you cannot win it at all - at least not in this life. Those who argue spiritually can never "win" an argument - we can only believe. And guess what? Many who would argue spiritually and culturally disagree with your bigotry.


Homophobia
homo=homosexual
phobia=fear
homophobia=fear of homosexuals.
You have a fear of the spread of homosexuality. Therefore you are a homophobe.

Technically incorrect. The word phobia means "an irrational fear of".

The root -phobia, however, can mean "fear of", "intolerance for" or, "aversion towards."

Homophobes have an intolerance for or an aversion towards homosexuals. The "fear" definition need not come into it at all.

Im against gay rites on many things, for one the whats next beasality, after all it isn't unatural for such as depicted by sum1's post earlier.

Im agains't it for many reasons, but whats wrong with what the majority of the populace(American populace) seeing it as wrong and thus making a law that it is wrong. After all if we go along other lines, y is Murder, rape, etc against the law. Because the populace sees it as immoral, wrong, against religous teachers etc... Y should gays b any diffrent.

I say every country just hold a vote, and/or, a senate/parlimental decision, on gays and have that b the end of it.

Homosexuality should b against the law, and is as an equal rite to b against the law, because it is an act that has nothing directly to do with race/ ethnic/ gender/ age.

O and sum1 said ur Homophobic because u fear the spreading of homosexuality. Um i guess if u wish to look at this way u can. However for something to b a phonia it must b a crippiling fear. The majority of ppl r no more afraid of homosexuality as they are afraid, of Terroism spreading. It is not crippling it is just bad.

Technically incorrect. The word phobia means "an irrational fear of".

The root -phobia, however, can mean "fear of", "intolerance for" or, "aversion towards."

Homophobes have an intolerance for or an aversion towards homosexuals. The "fear" definition need not come into it at all.
Indeed. For example, it could be said of me that I am bigotphobe, or homophobephobe, since I have aversion for and am intolerant of both bigots and homophobes. I need not fear them to despise them.

If you really crave an authoritarian regime that represses sexual minorities so, then move to Iran. They have a nice theocracy there. I'm sure everyone living under it is very happy, too. Well, except those faggots being buried alive for their crime of loving another man, of course.

Once you start state discrimination against someone, anyone really, you set up a dangerous precedent. You never know who's gonna be next. Might be you.

Thats when we come to egoism, everyone wants to do what he wants, Want to marry a man go ahead, want to fuck a dog go ahead, want to fuck a boy of 2yrs go ahead, thats the problem, everyone wants this and that and that and another thing, everyone wants too much damned rights. Thats the problem people prefer (1.)chaos over order (2.)anarchatic state over laws (3.) luxuries over necesities (4.) pleasure and lust over values (5.) globilisation over preservation of culture and (6.) freedom of conscious over religion.

Im against gay rites on many things, for one the whats next beasality, after all it isn't unatural for such as depicted by sum1's post earlier.

Same-sex marriages won't lead to beastiality because animals aren't human. And animals have no legal standing and cannot sign a marriage contract.
For you to even bring that up is ridiculous.

Im agains't it for many reasons, but whats wrong with what the majority of the populace(American populace) seeing it as wrong and thus making a law that it is wrong. After all if we go along other lines, y is Murder, rape, etc against the law. Because the populace sees it as immoral, wrong, against religous teachers etc... Y should gays b any diffrent.

No. Murder and rape are illegal because they hurt people. Gay marriage hurts no one.

Um what makes animals diffrent from humans hmm.
O and animals don't have to sign a contract for beastality to occur.

Gay marriage can indeed hurt ppl psychologically.
And also there r many laws on the books that, don't cause harm to ppl, so according to ur logic, only laws that involve sum1 being hurt should b vaild thus voiding half the laws we have today.

Thats when we come to egoism, everyone wants to do what he wants, Want to marry a man go ahead, want to fuck a dog go ahead, want to fuck a boy of 2yrs go ahead, thats the problem, everyone wants this and that and that and another thing, everyone wants too much damned rights.

No, the problem is that you seem unable to separate consentual sex between two adults from sex with animals or sex with children. Homosexual marriage has no bearing on any of those things, except to people who consider them immoral, like yourself.

Im against gay rites on many things, for one the whats next beasality, after all it isn't unatural for such as depicted by sum1's post earlier.
.
Bestiality is not between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent. They cannot legally sign contracts because of this. Case closed.

Note that it was proved countless times that homosexuality is indeed natural, as it is frequently seen in nature. Look up stats of gay mammals. Do your homework.


Im agains't it for many reasons, but whats wrong with what the majority of the populace(American populace) seeing it as wrong and thus making a law that it is wrong. After all if we go along other lines, y is Murder, rape, etc against the law. Because the populace sees it as immoral, wrong, against religous teachers etc... Y should gays b any diffrent.

Murder, rape and theft leave victims behind. This is why there are laws against them, not because they're sins. Governments are not held by religious beliefs.

Two men or women loving each other makes no victims. There is no such thing as a crime without a victim. This is why it is different for them.


I say every country just hold a vote, and/or, a senate/parlimental decision, on gays and have that b the end of it.

Tyranny by the majority is not an acceptable justification for repression.


Homosexuality should b against the law, and is as an equal rite to b against the law, because it is an act that has nothing directly to do with race/ ethnic/ gender/ age.

Just like ethnicity, gender or age, sexual orientation is not something one can choose. There should not be any discrimination upon such a thing. In fact, there should not even have discrimination on things that people DO choose, like religion, political affiliation, or the manner in which one dresses.


O and sum1 said ur Homophobic because u fear the spreading of homosexuality. Um i guess if u wish to look at this way u can. However for something to b a phonia it must b a crippiling fear. The majority of ppl r no more afraid of homosexuality as they are afraid, of Terroism spreading. It is not crippling it is just bad.
No, homophobia also means aversion for, or contempt for, homosexuals.

No, the problem is that you seem unable to separate consentual sex between two adults from sex with animals or sex with children. Homosexual marriage has no bearing on any of those things, except to people who consider them immoral, like yourself.

I named them because from that we advance to more horrible things like those,as is shown by the new paedophille party in Corrupt liberal Netherlands, Kingdoom of The Liberal People.

Um what makes animals diffrent from humans hmm.
O and animals don't have to sign a contract for beastality to occur.

Gay marriage can indeed hurt ppl psychologically.
And also there r many laws on the books that, don't cause harm to ppl, so according to ur logic, only laws that involve sum1 being hurt should b vaild thus voiding half the laws we have today.

How does Boy 1 and Boy 2 getting married psychologically effect Person 3?

My friend there is an important thing to learn about democracy:
" Democracy is only good when used right"
So if I have to say it I will say it, so as to be honest.
When democracy isn't being used good I prefer an Authotarian style Goverment, which doesn't murder people torture etc.
As an American president once said:
" The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance".

So now allowing homosexuals to live their lives as full human beings is akin to murder and torture?

Who, pray tell, is being harmed by a homosexual pursuing a relationship with another willing adult?

Im against gay rites on many things, for one the whats next beasality, after all it isn't unatural for such as depicted by sum1's post earlier.

(a) The slippery slope fallacy is poor argument.
(b) Bestiality will not be "next", because bestiality does not involve willing partners. Nor is there any fear of someone marrying their pet, as a pet cannot sign a legal contract.
(c) No one has demonstrated that homosexuality is unnatural. To do so is logically impossible, as anything which occurs in nature is natural. Thus, every trait that is possible within human beings is natural.

Im agains't it for many reasons, but whats wrong with what the majority of the populace(American populace) seeing it as wrong and thus making a law that it is wrong.

If the majority of the populace thought it was wrong for black people to drink from the same water fountain, would it be ok to make a law against that? if the majority of the populace thought that women should wear burquas, would it be ok to make a law requiring it? If the majority of the populace thought that everyone should be Christian, would it be ok to arrest all the Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, atheists, etc. and throw them in jail for not being the same religion?

There is a reason that our government is not a pure democracy. The tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of a minority. The "majority of the populace" thinking it isn't a good enough reason to trample the rights of a minority. That majority must have an objective reason for doing so.

After all if we go along other lines, y is Murder, rape, etc against the law.

Indeed. Murder and rape can objectively be shown to harm the victims of those crimes. What victim exists in a homosexual relationship? Who is harmed?

Because the populace sees it as immoral, wrong, against religous teachers etc...

Wrong. It is because it can be shown to harm other citizens - citizens which it is the government's job to protect.

I say every country just hold a vote, and/or, a senate/parlimental decision, on gays and have that b the end of it.

Should those same countries "just hold a vote" on blacks as well? Jews? Women? Pet lovers? Liberals? Conservatives?

Homosexuality should b against the law, and is as an equal rite to b against the law, because it is an act that has nothing directly to do with race/ ethnic/ gender/ age.

Actually, it has quite a bit to do with gender. The only reason anyone thinks that homosexuality is wrong is that they say "men" and "women" have certain roles that they absolutely must fit. Men can only love women and women can only love men. To say that a man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman is pretty clear gender discrimination.

O and sum1 said ur Homophobic because u fear the spreading of homosexuality. Um i guess if u wish to look at this way u can. However for something to b a phonia it must b a crippiling fear.

To be "a phobia" it must be an irrational fear. To use the root -phobia, it must be a fear, intolerance for, or aversion towards.

Wow. He just ripped everything you said to shreds.

Thats when we come to egoism, everyone wants to do what he wants, Want to marry a man go ahead, want to fuck a dog go ahead, want to fuck a boy of 2yrs go ahead, thats the problem, everyone wants this and that and that and another thing, everyone wants too much damned rights.

Strawman. A dog cannot consent. A child cannot consent. Neither of them can sign a contract because of this: it also implies they cannot freely give consent for sexual relationships. Adults can consent. So allowing two consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want is in no way a slippery slope.

Raping a child also leaves a victim, which is why is a crime. It cripples someone emotionally for life. A loving couple of the same sex who engage in sexual relations leave no victims. It is the opposite, and is quite fulfilling for both of them. Do not ever again compare homosexuality and pedophilia in my presence, as I tend to respond harshly to such garbage whenever I hear about it. There is nothing comparable between a loving homosexual relationship between two consenting adults and raping a child.


Thats the problem people prefer (1.)chaos over order (2.)anarchatic state over laws (3.) luxuries over necesities (4.) pleasure and lust over values (5.) globilisation over preservation of culture and (6.) freedom of conscious over religion.
Again, baseless speculation proven oh so wrong by the fact that none of these problems are present in Canada despite the country allowing gays to be legally married for over five years.

So now allowing homosexuals to live their lives as full human beings is akin to murder and torture?

Who, pray tell, is being harmed by a homosexual pursuing a relationship with another willing adult?


All of society is being harmed, future generations, present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us, lik what happened in Communism for exmaple under Stalin.Oh that reminds me we don't respect our forefathers anymore since they were close-minded and antiquated.

I named them because from that we advance to more horrible things like those,as is shown by the new paedophille party in Corrupt liberal Netherlands, Kingdoom of The Liberal People.

No, there is no reason to believe we "advance" that way. Homosexuality is completely separate from bestiality, as it also is separate from paedophilia.

And please, if you're going to claim that the new paedophile party in the Netherlands was somehow caused by allowing homosexuals to marry, provide some proof. Otherwise, I'm leaving that example alone.

I named them because from that we advance to more horrible things like those,as is shown by the new paedophille party in Corrupt liberal Netherlands, Kingdoom of The Liberal People.
Paedophilia is still illegal there. And it will remain so, because no one will ever vote for such a party. Liberals =/= child molesters.

You're growing increasingly offensive and desperate in your attempts to deny the same rights and priviledges to gays and lesbians, but no one will fall for your pathetic "slippery slope" strawman.

Thats when we come to egoism, everyone wants to do what he wants, Want to marry a man go ahead, want to fuck a dog go ahead, want to fuck a boy of 2yrs go ahead, thats the problem, everyone wants this and that and that and another thing, everyone wants too much damned rights.

How exactly is a man having a consentual relationship with another man comparable to any nonconsentual relationship?

Your statement is logically no different from those who said, "If we let a black man marry a white woman, the next thing will be men marrying dogs and men raping little children."

Thats the problem people prefer (1.)chaos over order

What is chaotic about any loving, committed relationship?

(2.)anarchatic state over laws

Who is advocating anarchy?

(3.) luxuries over necesities

How is legal marriage any more or less necessary for heterosexuals than for homosexuals?

(4.) pleasure and lust over values

What if pleasure is a value? Have you ever read the Kama Sutra?

(5.) globilisation over preservation of culture

So we should just ignore all those other people out there?

(6.) freedom of conscious over religion.

Huh?

Um what makes animals diffrent from humans hmm.

The inability to provide informed consent.

Gay marriage can indeed hurt ppl psychologically.

How?

And also there r many laws on the books that, don't cause harm to ppl, so according to ur logic, only laws that involve sum1 being hurt should b vaild thus voiding half the laws we have today.

There are many laws that should be voided. And they are being voided or ignored - more and more. I used to live in a city where it was illegal to wear red shoes on Cherry Street. Do you really think that law made any sense? Do you think the government has the right to arrest people just for wearing red shoes? What if it is a child with red tennis shoes?


I named them because from that we advance to more horrible things like those,as is shown by the new paedophille party in Corrupt liberal Netherlands, Kingdoom of The Liberal People.

And once again we see Maypole making the exact same argument made by those who would have banned interracial marriages.

You know what I am opposed to? I am opposed to religious parents having their child circumcized for religious reasons, as that child is too young to choose the religion for themselves. We should make this illegal. Otherwise, they'll make pedophilia legal.

My argument is the exact same twisted logic you use.

How does Boy 1 and Boy 2 getting married psychologically effect Person 3?

The fact that such an attrocity would b allowed, could affect the 3rd person into believe there is no hope for the world, and similar beliefs.

All of society is being harmed, future generations, present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us, lik what happened in Communism for exmaple under Stalin.Oh that reminds me we don't respect our forefathers anymore since they were close-minded and antiquated.

How, pray tell, is denying any rights whatsoever to anyone part of the struggle for liberty?

Wow. He just ripped everything you said to shreds.
Who, me or dempub? Or both?

All of society is being harmed, future generations, present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us, lik what happened in Communism for exmaple under Stalin.

I'm still missing the harm in it. Where's the victims at?


EVERYONE LISTEN TO THIS: Understand this. I can get married right now if I want. It's just not going to be respected by the government. Millions of gay people are married right now, just not with the government. All we're asking is that that marriage gives us the same rights as straight people. Allowing us to marry under law changes no social anything. So quit saying it does. It doesn't. Gay people will be just as prevalent after we're allowed to marry as we were before. Trust me.

All of society is being harmed, future generations, present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us, lik what happened in Communism for exmaple under Stalin.Oh that reminds me we don't respect our forefathers anymore since they were close-minded and antiquated.
Utter bullshit. For your information, those future generations you speak of are overwhelmingly in support of equal rights and priviledges for gays and lesbians. Look up a public opinion poll that divides opinion based on age and see for yourself.

Communism and Stalin have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Neither does the forefathers. Stop trying to dodge the issue.

The fact that such an attrocity would b allowed, could affect the 3rd person into believe there is no hope for the world, and similar beliefs.

That's not psychological harm.
Give me a case of psychosis or schizophrenia or seizures or something, then I'll give that argument a chance.

All of society is being harmed,

How? How does a person marrying the love of their life harm you? Please do tell.

future generations,

How? How would treating a homosexual person like an equal harm any future persons?

present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us,

How so? The generation before us fought for equal rights for all, and only got so far. We continue those struggle against bigots like you who would deny equal protection to those you find "icky".

Your arguments and your mentality are no different than those who fought for segregation or for laws placing blacks in the back of the bus. They are no different from those who would have kept all women in the kitchen - barefoot, pregnant, and unable to vote. All of those people thought that forward progress in equality would be the downfall of society as well.

Oh that reminds me we don't respect our forefathers anymore since they were close-minded and antiquated.

Did we stop respecting our forefathers when we outlawed slavery? Keep in mind that most of them had slaves. Did we stop respecting them when we allowed women to vote? When we stopped counting black persons as 3/5 of a person?


The fact that such an attrocity would b allowed, could affect the 3rd person into believe there is no hope for the world, and similar beliefs.

In other words, it will make the bigots despair of their bigotry. Oh noes! These people only feel bad about what others do in their bedrooms because they have chosen to be bigots. Forgive me if I don't feel sorry for them.

I guess we should have kept interracial marriage illegal too, since those who thought it was an "atrocity" might have felt bad about it afterwards.

I'm still missing the harm in it. Where's the victims at?


EVERYONE LISTEN TO THIS: Understand this. I can get married right now if I want. It's just not going to be respected by the government. Millions of gay people are married right now, just not with the government. All we're asking is that that marriage gives us the same rights as straight people. Allowing us to marry under law changes no social anything. So quit saying it does. It doesn't. Gay people will be just as prevalent after we're allowed to marry as we were before. Trust me.

Finally, we can get somewhere, if you told me you're gay I would understand why you are defending yourself so harshly. Have to go to bed, hopefully will chat later.

The fact that such an attrocity would b allowed, could affect the 3rd person into believe there is no hope for the world, and similar beliefs.
Sounds to me like person 3 needs to consult a freaking psychologist before he hangs himself because his red fishies is dead and that such an atrocity happening robs him of his hope for the world.

This is certainly the most ridiculous statement in the last 10 pages of this thread.

Finally, we can get somewhere, if you told me you're gay I would understand why you are defending yourself so harshly. Have to go to bed, hopefully will chat later.
I did say that already.