NationStates Jolt Archive

Neo Art wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:

Well, the current majority of society seems to have no problem in telling the smokers how wrong they are. And harming one's self, voluntarily for enjoyment? Voluntarily shortening one's life seems a little crazy.

But anyway, I do not believe homosexuality shortens lifespans, except AIDS, which is more manageble than when it first became widely known.

I haven't heard anyone claim that smoking is inherently "wrong" or immoral. I've certainly heard people claim that forcing others to inhale your smoke is wrong, and that smoking is a fairly poor decision, given that the costs generally seem to outweigh the benefits by a fairly large margin - and I'm sure if gay people made a habit of randomly running up to strangers, having gay sex with them, and then dying of painful gayness-related diseases, we'd criticize those things, too.

(And, by the way, AIDS is in no way a "gay disease." There are far, far more HIV+ heterosexuals out there than homosexuals.)

Neo Art wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:

Well, the current majority of society seems to have no problem in telling the smokers how wrong they are. And harming one's self, voluntarily for enjoyment? Voluntarily shortening one's life seems a little crazy.

But anyway, I do not believe homosexuality shortens lifespans, except AIDS, which is more manageble than when it first became widely known.
That majority rule crap again? I called you on this once before and you ignored it.

Just because the majority have no problem doing something, that doesn't make the majority right. Once upon a time, the majority of Americans (the majority being white at the time) had no problem segregating the races and abusing, murdering and terrorizing black people. That did not make segregation okay, nor something that the people harmed by it should have just accepted because the majority said so.

When it comes to smoking, I agree with the majority that non-smokers should not be exposed against their will to other people's tobacco smoke. But I happen to disagree with those laws that purport to protect smokers from themselves -- such as banning smoking in cars or in one's own home or in open outdoor spaces. Smokers make the choice to harm themselves in this manner, and they have a right to run their own lives as they see fit, so long as they harm no one else.

Now I'll sit and wait for you to show how homosexuality harms anyone -- either the homosexual or anyone else -- in order to justify stripping gays of their rights just because the majority say so.

Well, the current majority of society seems to have no problem in telling the smokers how wrong they are.

Smokers are still allowed to marry.

And harming one's self, voluntarily for enjoyment? Voluntarily shortening one's life seems a little crazy.

Most persons would probably prefer a shorter life with sex, to a long but celibate life.

Poliwanacraca wrote:I haven't heard anyone claim that smoking is inherently "wrong" or immoral. I've certainly heard people claim that forcing others to inhale your smoke is wrong, and that smoking is a fairly poor decision, given that the costs generally seem to outweigh the benefits by a fairly large margin - and I'm sure if gay people made a habit of randomly running up to strangers, having gay sex with them, and then dying of painful gayness-related diseases, we'd criticize those things, too.

(And, by the way, AIDS is in no way a "gay disease." There are far, far more HIV+ heterosexuals out there than homosexuals.)Oh, please... The government taxes the tobacco poison and those taxes are used in anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare programs. Of course the hypocrites are attempting to shape public policy. The only reason the tobacco companies aren't at the top of public demonization heap is because of all the press on A.I.G.

Other than Africa, my info on percentages of infected is different.

Now, my understanding is that the next is true. The human rectum is not constructed as well the vagina for receiving a penis. Flesh tissue is more apt to tear and both male and female recipients of sodomy do have health problems related to that specific sex act.

Poliwanacraca wrote:Oh, please... The government taxes the tobacco poison and those taxes are used in anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare programs. Of course the hypocrites are attempting to shape public policy. The only reason the tobacco companies aren't at the top of public demonization heap is because of all the press on A.I.G.

Other than Africa, my info on percentages of infected is different.

Now, my understanding is that the next is true. The human rectum is not constructed as well the vagina for receiving a penis. Flesh tissue is more apt to tear and both male and female recipients of sodomy do have health problems related to that specific sex act.

Yup, and that's why we fags use condoms. Extra strength ones, you know? In fact, in my chosen path as a career sodomist, I've never once met a man who'd perform anal without a condom unless they were in a highly stable monogamous relationship and had recently been tested at a GUM clinic.

Statistically, homosexuals visit sexual health clinics more often than heterosexuals, resulting in generally lower prevelance of STDs amongst the younger homosexual population.

Bum tears are incredibly rare and the product of inadequate lubrication. I could show you how it works if you've experienced that problem before. It's a matter of technique.

Oh, please... The government taxes the tobacco poison and those taxes are used in anti-smoking campaigns

Source?

and healthcare programs.

Which smokers often need.

Now, my understanding is that the next is true. The human rectum is not constructed as well the vagina for receiving a penis. Flesh tissue is more apt to tear and both male and female recipients of sodomy do have health problems related to that specific sex act.

You failed explain why this matters.

And, by the way, AIDS is in no way a "gay disease." There are far, far more HIV+ heterosexuals out there than homosexuals.

Oh no we better ban hetrosexual sex then.

Oh no we better ban hetrosexual sex then.

Not a bad idea. All human suffering is a direct result of heterosexual intercourse.

Getbrettwrote:Yup, and that's why we fags use condoms. Extra strength ones, you know? In fact, in my chosen path as a career sodomist, I've never once met a man who'd perform anal without a condom unless they were in a highly stable monogamous relationship and had recently been tested at a GUM clinic.

Statistically, homosexuals visit sexual health clinics more often than heterosexuals, resulting in generally lower prevelance of STDs amongst the younger homosexual population.

Bum tears are incredibly rare and the product of inadequate lubrication. I could show you how it works if you've experienced that problem before. It's a matter of technique.Well, how gracious of you. But I'm not a fan of sodomy. Don't want to stick my dick in a shithole and no desire to receive one.

But I am glad that more and more folks are taking care of themselves and visiting clinics.

Are there still those thrillseekers among your compatriots that aren't as fearful, because of new drugs and disease management programs, perhaps nihilistic, that brag about "riding bearback"?

Getbrettwrote:Well, how gracious of you. But I'm not a fan of sodomy. Don't want to stick my dick in a shithole and no desire to receive one.

But I am glad that more and more folks are taking care of themselves and visiting clinics.

Are there still those thrillseekers among your compatriots that aren't as fearful, because of new drugs and disease management programs, perhaps nihilistic, that brag about "riding bearback"?

Temper, young one--you better learn to control it, because this forum makes the media look conservative.

Poliwanacraca wrote:Oh, please... The government taxes the tobacco poison and those taxes are used in anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare programs. Of course the hypocrites are attempting to shape public policy. The only reason the tobacco companies aren't at the top of public demonization heap is because of all the press on A.I.G.

Other than Africa, my info on percentages of infected is different.

Now, my understanding is that the next is true. The human rectum is not constructed as well the vagina for receiving a penis. Flesh tissue is more apt to tear and both male and female recipients of sodomy do have health problems related to that specific sex act.

Beyond noting that "tobacco companies" are not even remotely equivalent to "smokers," I'm going to let this potential threadjack pass.

The "other than Africa" is cute. Amazingly enough, I hear tell that Africans count as actual people nowadays! (Also, you know, other than women, men are the most likely people to get breast cancer. Breast cancer is clearly a male disease, right?)

Yes, if you engage in anal sex - which many homosexuals don't, and many heterosexuals do - it carries some risks which are different than those associated with other sex acts. So what?

Getbrettwrote:Well, how gracious of you. But I'm not a fan of sodomy. Don't want to stick my dick in a shithole and no desire to receive one.

But I am glad that more and more folks are taking care of themselves and visiting clinics.

Are there still those thrillseekers among your compatriots that aren't as fearful, because of new drugs and disease management programs, perhaps nihilistic, that brag about "riding bearback"?

In my personal experience, this behaviour is exceptionally rare within my generation (<25). It may be more common in those older than that, I'm not sure.

Go on, stick something in your pooper. It's plenty fun for all the family!

The Parkus Empire wrote:Temper, young one--you better learn to control it, because this forum makes the media look conservative.Well, I may have been more graphic in expressing my personal dislike of sodomy, but I didn't intend for it to be perceived as anger.

Some folk, in the heat of excitement, let there tempers go through their writings. I try to convey calmness, but I fail, sometimes, too.

Some folk, in the heat of excitement, let there tempers go through their writings. I try to convey calmness, but I fail, sometimes, too.

Check your nation's telegrams.

yea its wrong. And dont give me this crap about me being a cruel person, a bigot, and evil, i dont care. No civil unions either

You've posted like a cruel person, a bigot, and possibly someone evil. I'll give you all the crap I like within forum rules because it's all there in your own post.

Have you been to Maine lately?

Kennebunkport ought to do the trick. Wow. Walking in the "wrong" bar and looks like something out of as Queer as Folk, yuck.

The "Nation's Playground" has whole new meaning now. Wow.

You've just shot yourself and what little integrity you might have had left in the foot. You just said, with that post, that you're opposed to homosexuality, not because of religious grounds (you've demonstrated your Biblical ignorance too often in this thread), not on biological grounds (you've been schooled there dozens of times as well), but just because you think gay sex is icky.

You've finally revealed your true objection, and it's that of a childish teenager. I've no longer the patience or desire to take seriously anything else you say after this post. You're done.

Yet you just called homosexuals diseased and unhealthy. You are as intolerant as you could possibly be without actually posting video of you attacking a gay person.


Now you mister, are acting freakin' intolerant. Let's call you.. mmm... Healthist? Yeah, healthist - I can read it from your message - you definitely assume that the meaning of word "illness" is totally negative. So what, If one's health isn't as ideal as IS YOURS does it make him worse person than YOU ARE? * Does it generally make him a worse person?

Wait, you called it a potential disease AND not healthy, and I'M intolerant? Nice try. It isn't my fault if you don't know how to choose words properly. What else am I to assume about both unhealthy and illness used in the same description? Y'know what, never mind. I don't want any more insight into how your mind works.

* - Yeah, to this point it's more like an irony

And I said before that homosexualism, as isn't disease in medical or ethical meaning of this word. It is more like deviation from the natural, healthy state. And this is IMO morally neutral.

"Homosexualism"? Now you're inventing new terms? What's wrong with you? If it's a "deviation from the natural, healthy state", how am I not supposed to take that as negative? Especially when you insist on using a word that has an established connotation like "disease"? You can't be that dense.

Yes, I have to eat unborn babies, which I have torn from the wombs of living teenage mothers, just to mask The Dreadful Sin of Intolerance forged in my soul. It really works!

Like I said, whatever gets you through the day. If you're surrounded by people who think like you do, baby eating just might be eugenically beneficial. Knock yourself out.

Now what the heck? Where did i say that? I have written that it's pretty immoralising to talk in public about sexual matters in general.

More invention. What the hell is "immoralising"? Did you mean "demoralizing"? If so, how? I agree that where one gets one's jollies isn't polite conversation, but when those who think that with whom others decide how to do exactly that is somehow a "disease", it seems to me that a little discomfort is outwieghed by making sure we don't dehumanize a segment of the population. Besides, I'm pretty sure the world would be a lot less uptight if more and more frank discussions about sex and sexuality were held. Hell, that's one of the only ways to stop the spread of a few actual diseases.

You see, the best way for homosexuals to be tolerated is to be good citizens, friends and workers. Some of my and my family friends are gay, and from what I see, this method works. Gay Pride Parades and stuff like that make it just worse. If the society has to be informed about something it is not that homosexualism is good (it is more like neutral), but that there are things other people just don't choose and therefore have to be tolerated.

So, be good little gays, and don't ever express your love and desire in public, despite the overwhelming display of heterosexual love and desire just about everywhere. Otherwise, we'll choose to not tolerate you to a bloody pulp. Got it.

That kind of thinking started religious wars. Srsly.

What an incredibly stupid thing to post.

Okay then, bring it on. You'll lose. Badly.

Those fighting for the right merely to be who they are have an order of magnitude more to fight for that people who think the enemy is just icky and doesn't fit our perception of normal.

And for the record, ending a sentiment like that with text speak is really childish. Then again, so are religious wars, so it might have been perfectly appropriate.

Getbrettwrote:Well, how gracious of you. But I'm not a fan of sodomy. Don't want to stick my dick in a shithole and no desire to receive one.

Then don't! How hard was that to figure out? Freedom. It's cool.

But I am glad that more and more folks are taking care of themselves and visiting clinics.

Somehow I doubt your sincerity, but I'll be charitable and take you at your word. I'm glad, too.

Are there still those thrillseekers among your compatriots that aren't as fearful, because of new drugs and disease management programs, perhaps nihilistic, that brag about "riding bearback"?

Are there still thrillseekers among your compatriots who aren't fearful at all and never use condoms, despite their promiscuity? Bet your ass, and there are more of them than there are gays who seek such thrills on demographic principle alone, so I don't see your point in even bringing that up.

Statistically, homosexuals visit sexual health clinics more often than heterosexuals, resulting in generally lower prevelance of STDs amongst the younger homosexual population.

(And, by the way, AIDS is in no way a "gay disease." There are far, far more HIV+ heterosexuals out there than homosexuals.)

Fuck it I will be the one to ask it but really You-Gi-Owe you should be asking it since you are trying to make an argument here.

Have you two got a source for this? How about in the USA Poli or just the western world?

In regards to Getbrett's post I would believe it only because I see it with my eyes but then that is anecdotal I would like to see these stats.

Well, the current political majority, seems to think that the "traditional marriage" is the proper institution. Now, we can argue about the righteousness of both arguments until the cows come home. I believe that all current states in the U.S.A. that have recognized same sex marriage have all had that definition of marriage put forth by the courts system, there may actually have been one case where elected representives have done this, I'm not certain. But there are currently no states with same sex marriage as the result of a direct vote of the people.

You've still got the wrong end of the stick.
In the 60s, the majority of the population of the US was very much in favour of segregation, to use a recent example. Does that mean that because the majorty was happy with the circumstances, legislation should not have been changed to finally treat blacks equally?

And the same goes for same-sex marriage. The rights of the individual are not, ever, subject to public vote.

Fuck it I will be the one to ask it but really You-Gi-Owe you should be asking it since you are trying to make an argument here.

Have you two got a source for this? How about in the USA Poli or just the western world?

In regards to Getbrett's post I would believe it only because I see it with my eyes but then that is anecdotal I would like to see these stats.

In the past I've volunteered at a sexual health clinic in Glasgow, dealing primarily with <25 male homosexuals. They're generally highly educated in sexual health matters, far and above the general knowledge of heterosexuals (according to my collegues), and routinely visited after each and every sexual encounter (and many times, before a planned sexual encounter). The stats I was given came from the nurses I worked with, but I'll have a search to see if I can find a source online for you.

The thread creator did not first define "wrong". In his implied definition of wrong I would see two possibilities; that either he sees something that others do not, or he cannot see what others can. The question in either case would be why, and the only answer I can see here is differences in thinking processes, which are of course inherently connected to biology.
Lack of societal work towards definition would in part explain disunity of perception and consequential suffering.

In the past I've volunteered at a sexual health clinic in Glasgow, dealing primarily with <25 male homosexuals. They're generally highly educated in sexual health matters, far and above the general knowledge of heterosexuals (according to my collegues), and routinely visited after each and every sexual encounter (and many times, before a planned sexual encounter). The stats I was given came from the nurses I worked with, but I'll have a search to see if I can find a source online for you.

That would be good, and if you find some for other countries as well even better. As I say I am more likely to believe you due to what I have seen but I do know <25 homosexuals who are just as bad as some <25 hetrosexuals in reagrds to sexual health.

Wait, you called it a potential disease AND not healthy, and I'M intolerant? Nice try.


But from your interpretation of words I could judge that you didn't like unhealthy people. That's what I meant, but whatever. Check the next paragraphs.


It isn't my fault if you don't know how to choose words properly. What else am I to assume about both unhealthy and illness used in the same description?


Maybe that's the problem. Second language...

"Homosexualism"? Now you're inventing new terms?

Like above.


What's wrong with you? If it's a "deviation from the natural, healthy state", how am I not supposed to take that as negative? Especially when you insist on using a word that has an established connotation like "disease"? You can't be that dense.


Let's call a spade spade. Maybe I'm just not accustomed to The Beautiful World of One Thousand Euphemisms enough to talk politically correctly.


Like I said, whatever gets you through the day. If you're surrounded by people who think like you do, baby eating just might be eugenically beneficial. Knock yourself out.


You still think that I am some dreadful criminal because of my views, don't you?


Besides, I'm pretty sure the world would be a lot less uptight if more and more frank discussions about sex and sexuality were held.


I guess that's where we differ.


Hell, that's one of the only ways to stop the spread of a few actual diseases.


Yeah, one of them.


So, be good little gays, and don't ever express your love and desire in public, despite the overwhelming display of heterosexual love and desire just about everywhere. Otherwise, we'll choose to not tolerate you to a bloody pulp. Got it.



Those fighting for the right merely to be who they are have an order of magnitude more to fight for that people who think the enemy is just icky and doesn't fit our perception of normal.



I generally don't like when so called "love" (it's more like desire, as you called it) is expressed in public places (Of course in sites which are widely known of the fact that people express their feelings there, it is OK - small digression). Platonic love - the real true love, doesn't have to be expressed by physical gestures and stays way frikkin’ above such thing as sexuality. And that’s the demoralization I’m talking about – the real meaning of love is being effaced. Yeah it is common and isn’t run by gays. Still directly expressed sexuality (be it homo, hetero or bi) which became common thanks to inter alia Gay Pride Parades, homosexuality being too “openly”, and other stuff which doesn’t help the situation, can only make this process.

Living as excellent citizens, workers and friends, making good example, could do much more good than, what you call, fighting. Meanwhile, the society should be taught to be tolerant, I don't doubt it, but rather generally tolerant, not to a certain group of people.


And for the record, ending a sentiment like that with text speak is really childish. Then again, so are religious wars, so it might have been perfectly appropriate.

You have rejected to become acquainted with my opinion and/or accept it, just because you saw two words you don't like. Maybe that's partially my fault, but still, this kind of thinking started religious wars (and yeah, they do suck).


What an incredibly stupid thing to post.

Okay then, bring it on. You'll lose. Badly.

[and other stuff too]


Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right, but the only one thing I'm one hundred percent certain is that you take this discussion too emotionally. Calm down, and we will have a nice debate instead of a flamewar.

I generally don't like when so called "love" (it's more like desire, as you called it) is expressed in public places.
Why is that? How does it make you feel?

Platonic love - the real true love, doesn't have to be expressed by physical gestures and stays way frikkin’ above such thing as sexuality.
Do you think that this is a biologically realistic expectation of most persons? What would demonstrate this? How does it make you feel?


Gay Pride Parades, homosexuality being too “openly”, and other stuff which doesn’t help the situation, can only make this process.
They are fighting for equality. It requires a level of publicity. It is necessary. How does it make you feel?

Why is that? How does it make you feel?

If you must know, how do I personally feel about that... Well, for me it is distracting from the things which are important in life, sometimes it can be even offensive or gross. I assume we are talking about every kind of expressing sexuality (like nudity in tv, people wearing "small" clothes on the streets etc.).


They are fighting for equality. It requires a level of publicity. It is necessary.

Fighting for equality... Well, I think that this is the case where fighting itself can become just too much. I would personally prefer learning and teaching. Evolution over revolution.

EDIT:


Do you think that this is a biologically realistic expectation of most persons? What would demonstrate this?


In my opinion we are obtaining our humanity from fighting our animal nature - instincts of: possesion, urge for power, unconditional procreation etc.

How do we show platonic love, you mean? Through deeds and moral acts.

But maybe these are just my opinions.

Fighting for equality... Well, I think that this is the case where fighting itself can become just too much. I would personally prefer learning and teaching. Evolution over revolution.

Perhaps you should suggest to them that they set up classrooms on the streets instead, then.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp7r4_heteroy_life

Perhaps you should suggest to them that they set up classrooms on the streets instead, then.

I thought rather about an unorganized form of education, in everybody's social niche, but classrooms are still better idea than a parade.

I thought rather about an unorganized form of education, in everybody's social niche, but classrooms are still better idea than a parade.
In that case, you should try and convince them to get everyone to go to classrooms.

In that case, you should try and convince them to get everyone to go to classrooms.

Well, that's just one of the methods, although probably not the best.

Ahh the lifelong debate between gay supporters and gay bashers. Well I may as well put my two cents in as well.

In my opinion, homosexuality is not something you are born with naturally. You are born with a set of sexual organs, designed for reproduction, in order to furthur your species. There is no natural beneift to homosexuality to our species. In fact you could say it's a detriment due to the fact that it effectively prevents those involved from creating offspring.

So therefore you have to ask the question 'Why do we have homosexuality if it's not natural?' Well here is my answer. Homosexuality is due to an anomaly in the psychological patterns of the brain which make up how you perceive and interact with the world. This anomaly is not something you can be born with, it is something that must be created.

How does one create an anomaly in your own brain? Simply put, by believing a lie. Sounds crazy? Not to far from the mark. In fact it has been proven that many psychological disorders are caused by changes in the way the brain has grown or in some cases deteriorated. In many cases that change was not something the patient was born with. It was somethign brought on by consistent mental duress, either by stress or by the patients own self destructive personality (i.e. severe paranoia).

So where am I going with all this? It is my belief that people who are homosexual are so because one day they came across the idea of homosexuality and related to it for one reason or another. therefore because this idea popped into their heads they persue it saying to themselves (and likely others) that they are gay. the consistent repitition leaves the subject honestly believing that they are sexually attracted to the same sex and their body begins to respond accordingly. Finally, wahlah! You have yourself a homosexual man or woman. Born hetero, believed in a flasehood and then became homo.

Now the ultimate question: Is it wrong? Well, this is a tricky question. If you believe any of what I have said, or at least putting your personal feelings aside to follow the logic that I am offering then it is the same as asking "Is it okay to a believe in a lie?"

Personally, I think it's stupid. However, if that's what floats your boat then it is your personal choice to do so. I am not God, nor would I wish to be. You have free will to decide what you want to do with yourself. I think it's wrong simply because it doesn't benefit the human race, however, I'm sure it's a great way to feel different and be unique.

Now i read earlier that someone had a point of if gays are wrong because they can't have children then being elderly or being underage is wrong. This is fallible logic as the elderly have surpassed the time when they can create a child and therefore have already done their natural part. Children are the opposite and just haven't had their turn.

And I conclude by saying, that I do not intend any offense to anyone although I suspect offense will be taken simply because I have a stand to take. Despite that I will gladly talk more about what I believe and will happily discuss criticisms, falsehoods in my thoughts and questions.

Well, that's just one of possible methods, probably not the best.
Yeah, you should come up with some other ones. Otherwise I think they'll have to stick with the parades. Also, if you're going to expect this of them, and it will cost more, I expect you to donate.

Yeah, you should come up with some other ones. Otherwise I think they'll have to stick with the parades. Also, if you're going to expect this of them, and it will cost more, I expect you to donate.

Why should I come up with ideas for them or donate their movements? It is their case. And my ideas for them are "be an example and tell your friends" (I have already explained this more in detail earlier). But still, I can oppose to those actions which seem to me, for example, offensive.

Why should I come up with ideas for them or donate their movements? It is their case. And my ideas for them are "be an example and tell your friends" (I have already explained this more in detail earlier). But still, I can oppose to those actions which seem to me, for example, offensive.

Your methods are slower. Would you also have expected women to discreetly obtain their right to vote?

Ahh the lifelong debate between gay supporters and gay bashers. Well I may as well put my two cents in as well.
Maybe you wouldn't have to, if you had read the thread, maybe you'd learn something, you know? But that would require an expenditure of energy, which you instead expect of everyone else.


In my opinion, homosexuality is not something you are born with naturally How do you figure on that? You think it comes from the sandman? Is this demonstrable?

You are born with a set of sexual organs, designed for reproduction, in order to furthur your species.
Sex serves more than reproduction. It serves psychological purposes. I think most people know this; Google would more than demonstrate this with critical thinking. If not, I could go threw Google for you myself.

There is no natural beneift to homosexuality to our species. In fact you could say it's a detriment due to the fact that it effectively prevents those involved from creating offspring.
There is other possible benefit to the species than simple reproduction. Species survival is not based purely on survival. Others have said this before me, you'd know if you'd read the thread. It's kicking a dead horse.

So therefore you have to ask the question 'Why do we have homosexuality if it's not natural?' Well here is my answer. Homosexuality is due to an anomaly in the psychological patterns of the brain which make up how you perceive and interact with the world. This anomaly is not something you can be born with, it is something that must be created
Ignoring that you have nothing to suggest this, you are also ignoring the possibility of an indirect special evolutionary advantage. As has already been said, it is not the amount of children produced, but the survivability. There is also this.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

How does one create an anomaly in your own brain? Simply put, by believing a lie. Sounds crazy? Not to far from the mark. In fact it has been proven that many psychological disorders are caused by changes in the way the brain has grown or in some cases deteriorated. In many cases that change was not something the patient was born with. It was somethign brought on by consistent mental duress, either by stress or by the patients own self destructive personality (i.e. severe paranoia).

The given "anomaly" lacks demonstrable harm to others. What you are suggesting is that homosexuality is pathological. Homosexuality has not been recognized as a disorder by the mainstream psychological community for over few decades now for lack of material in that regard. Homosexuals have not shown a higher rate of psychological disorder.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+APA+decision+December+1973%3a+declassification+of+homosexuality+as...-a094598255
(Brief summary, I believe this will do)


So where am I going with all this? It is my belief that people who are homosexual are so because one day they came across the idea of homosexuality and related to it for one reason or another. therefore because this idea popped into their heads they persue it saying to themselves (and likely others) that they are gay. the consistent repitition leaves the subject honestly believing that they are sexually attracted to the same sex and their body begins to respond accordingly. Finally, wahlah! You have yourself a homosexual man or woman. Born hetero, believed in a flasehood and then became homo.

I can be attracted to either gender. It started around the time my balls started dropping. Males usually start being attracted to others at that point. I wasn't expecting to be able to be attracted males, and my attitude was less elaborately similar to yours, and so I was rather surprised. If the evidence were to show that it were a disorder, or for that matter harmful to others, I would have to accept that. It is not worth comfort to lie to oneself, the end results are always worse. Do you think that the whole homosexual and bisexual population is undemonstratively, pathologically lying to themselves and others?

Your methods are slower. Would you also have expected women to discreetly obtain their right to vote?


Well, maybe not completely discrete, but within some boundaries.

Well, maybe not completely discrete, but within some boundaries.
Maybe you could name the boundaries, and what they serve.
I may have to sleep.

Maybe you could name the boundaries, and what they serve.
I may have to sleep.

Simplifying - things that don't annoy too many people would be great.

Yeah, I'm getting tired with this discussion too.

Equality is more important. I find it likely that they are annoyed out of ignorance. Perhaps it compromises their beliefs; they don't want to have to examine themselves. They took that risk when they decided to believe. To cater to them would be harmful them and everyone else. An unexamined life tends to lead to disaster, for the individual and for society. This is a democracy; and even if it weren't, they effect everyone.

As for you, your personal comfort is worth other people's equality?

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Nope. Not wrong.

Equality is more important. I find it likely that they are annoyed out of ignorance. Perhaps it compromises their beliefs; they don't want to have to examine themselves. They took that risk when they decided to believe. To cater to them would be harmful to them as well.

Maybe, but I think that people may be annoyed even more by blocked roads and obscenity. Still, annoying can only make the hatred deeper. That's why I would recommend less offensive methods, especially teaching people to tolerate differences.

Sure, teach them. But don't compromise the hastening of equality for them. They fail recognize the necessity, the urgency of the matter, on account of ignorance and lack of consideration. They do not see, or refuse to see, the danger of nonobjective discrimination; else they would have to change their psychological structure, perhaps their lives. As for the paraders, their parade benefits the annoyed persons by not catering to them. If you cater to their sleep, they just sleep deeper.

Which explains the complete lack of a market for gay and lesbian porn.

Actually there is, and a complete line of sex toys meant for the separate, gay, lesbian, and heterosexual...

On a different note:

How can homosexuality be wrong?
Homosexuals are less likely to sleep around and have multiple partners (because really in today's society where will you find them? With our prejudice society its hard to be open)
SURPLUS POPULATION!- Homosexuality helps with that as well, creating a lack there of.
There are gay penguins- and that just rocks.


A Heterosexual male is 35% more likely to murder. Where is the real sin?

If it were about reason, they would try to objectively define sin. Failing that, they would cease to use the term.

Sure, teach them. But don't compromise the hastening of equality for them. They fail recognize the necessity, the urgency of the matter, on account of ignorance and lack of consideration. They do not see, or refuse to see, the danger of nonobjective discrimination; else they would have to change their psychological structure, perhaps their lives. As for the paraders, their parade benefits the annoyed persons by not catering to them. If you cater to their sleep, they just sleep deeper.

Yes, we have to make ignorant people realize the importance of equality. I just don't think that it is necessary or recommended to annoy them at the same time. You see, our rations are both correct, and that is why the golden mean has to be found. Golden mean, between complete silence and offense. The border I have written about before.

Holy Cross Islands wrote:Yes, we have to make ignorant people realize the importance of equality. I just don't think that it is necessary or recommended to annoy them at the same time. You see, our rations are both correct, and that is why the golden mean has to be found. Golden mean, between complete silence and offense. The border I have written about before.Sorry, equality, unless it occurs naturally, is a form of slavery. Outside of an objective legal system, claims of equality are ridiculous. In the a matter of beauty, the ugly claim equality with the pretty because of feelings of inferiority, but the pretty rarely claim to be equal to the ugly. When "equality" becomes the object of a society, you will only make everyone equally miserable.

Love thy neighbor as thy self. Sometimes difficult. Lots of facets. but usually a good policy.

Yes, we have to make ignorant people realize the importance of equality. I just don't think that it is necessary or recommended to annoy them at the same time. You see, our rations are both correct, and that is why the golden mean has to be found. Golden mean, between complete silence and offense. The border I have written about before.

For being so fond of Ancient Greece (Platonic love, Gold Mean), you seem unusually intolerant of homosexual behaviour.

hell its wrong do u really think this looks right :fluffle: _________ _________

hell its wrong do u really think this looks right :fluffle: _________ _________

....yes? Admittedly, most gay people have things like "hair" and "bodies" and aren't quite that shade of yellow, which makes them look a bit more right.

hell its wrong do u really think this looks right :fluffle: _________ _________

Are smileys wrong?

Are there still those thrillseekers among your compatriots that aren't as fearful, because of new drugs and disease management programs, perhaps nihilistic, that brag about "riding bearback"?
I am assuming based this remark of yours and related ones about what gays do, that you have never had heterosexual sex either. If you had, you would know that heteros have anal sex, too, and that some hetero men put a lot of pressure on their female partners to do without condoms and then "brag about 'riding bear[sic]back'". (Note: It's spelled "bareback", btw.)

So what is your objection to gay sex, then? Merely the fact that it is done by gays? Because heteros do all the same things, carrying the same risks. So it's not the sex acts you hate, but just the people doing them?

You've still got the wrong end of the stick.
In the 60s, the majority of the population of the US was very much in favour of segregation, to use a recent example. Does that mean that because the majorty was happy with the circumstances, legislation should not have been changed to finally treat blacks equally?

And the same goes for same-sex marriage. The rights of the individual are not, ever, subject to public vote.
I have asked him this very question twice. He ignored it both times. Now you've made it three, and so far, three non-responses. I think that tells us pretty much all we need to know about his argument -- i.e. that it's crap, and he knows it. His claims about majority opinion are bullshit because he is clearly invoking it ONLY to use against gays, not as a real philosophy about how society should work.

Perhaps you should suggest to them that they set up classrooms on the streets instead, then.

This was the point at which I LOL'd. I wasn't sure where you were leading him, but you definitely went to the good place. Well and elegantly played, sir. :D

Well, maybe not completely discrete, but within some boundaries.
I see. So, would you like us women to give up the vote and re-do our suffrage movement in a more discreet (btw, "discrete" means something else), less annoying way, staying strictly within your undefined boundaries of what YOU are willing to put up with in MY life?

Equality is more important. I find it likely that they are annoyed out of ignorance. Perhaps it compromises their beliefs; they don't want to have to examine themselves. They took that risk when they decided to believe. To cater to them would be harmful them and everyone else. An unexamined life tends to lead to disaster, for the individual and for society. This is a democracy; and even if it weren't, they effect everyone.

As for you, your personal comfort is worth equality?
Suggested edit: "As for you, your personal comfort is worth other people's equality?"

And the answer, apparently, would be "yes."

Holy Cross Islands wrote:Sorry, equality, unless it occurs naturally, is a form of slavery.
Laughable nonsense.

Outside of an objective legal system, claims of equality are ridiculous.
This nonsense contradicts the previous sentence's nonsense.

In the a matter of beauty, the ugly claim equality with the pretty because of feelings of inferiority, but the pretty rarely claim to be equal to the ugly.
This ridiculous nonsense is unrelated to any of the other nonsense and has no reason to be here at all.

When "equality" becomes the object of a society, you will only make everyone equally miserable.
And this piece of nonsense cements you as a die-hard bigot. By rejecting the concept of equality, you prove yourself to be motivated not by any positive moral or philosophical beliefs but only by the desire to treat others badly and place yourself above them in some kind of imagined pecking order.

On the basis of this post, I dismiss you as a crank.

But from your interpretation of words I could judge that you didn't like unhealthy people. That's what I meant, but whatever. Check the next paragraphs.

You could, but you'd have to be willfully ignorant to do so.

Maybe that's the problem. Second language...



Like above.

Again, not my problem. If you're going to wade into a debate in English with such smug certaintly, you can't deflect criticism with "oh, sorry, I don't know what I'm saying" in any form. You opened the can, you have to deal with its contents. Hopefully you've learned just how insulting your choice of wording was and will change it as a result. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Let's call a spade spade. Maybe I'm just not accustomed to The Beautiful World of One Thousand Euphemisms enough to talk politically correctly.

Nobody's asking you to. Rather, you're being pilloried for using inflammatory language to paint your picture.

Here we disagree.

That's too bad. Frank and open conversations about sex and sexuality would eliminate the myths and misconceptions that lead to ignorant positions like yours. True, some people are comfortable and happy believing that they are unassailably right...and those are the most foolish looking people in the debate. Thing is, I've not heard one solid argument against same-sex marriage. Not one that makes any logical sense whatsoever. They all wind up boiling down to "it's icky and we don't like it". Well, that's the rhetoric of an eight-year-old. How is it possible that society can let such juvenile reasoning determine public policy for every citizen?

You still think that I am some dreadful criminal because of my views, don't you?

Dreadful, yes. Criminal, no. Not in my country, anyway. You have the right to be as loudly ignorant as you wish.

I generally don't like when so called "love" (it's more like desire, as you called it) is expressed in public places (Of course in sites which are widely known of the fact that people express their feelings there, it is OK - small digression).

All kinds of "love" or "desire", or just homosexual? 'Cause you're basically saying you don't like going anywhere outside, watching TV, or reading any commercial media because ads using heterosexual lust as a selling tool have been around forever. This is a disingenuous argument and is again willfully ignorant of reality.

Platonic love - the real true love,

In your opinion.

doesn't have to be expressed by physical gestures and stays way frikkin’ above such thing as sexuality. And that’s the demoralization I’m talking about – the real meaning of love is being effaced.

Not sure how, but hey, as long as you're making stuff up, go on. I mean really, how is someone's expressed love or even lust in any way detrimental to yours?

Yeah it is common and isn’t run by gays. Still directly expressed sexuality (be it homo, hetero or bi) which became common thanks to inter alia Gay Pride Parades, homosexuality being too “openly”, and other stuff which doesn’t help the situation, can only make this process.

I don't like White Pride parades, but they've got the right to march. Surely blatant racism is worse than blatant love.

I think the St. Patrick's Day parades are stupid and outmoded. The Irish haven't been a persecuted minority in decades. You know what I do? I don't go. I steer clear of downtown on that day. You know what I don't do? Insist that they stop marching. Why? Well, mostly because I'm an adult, but also because I'd want the right to assemble and march for my particular cause should the need ever arise. Live and let live. Or is that just too Christ-like for you?

Look, just come out and say it: you don't like homosexuals because you think the physical act of homosexual love is "icky", and it's something you'd never do, let alone accept. That's fine, but that doesn't mean being gay is wrong. It means you just don't like it. Well, thankfully, laws aren't passed based solely on what people don't like.

And just how "open" is not "too open", then? Where do you draw the line, and who gives you the authority to draw it?

Living as excellent citizens, workers and friends, making good example, could do much more good than, what you call, fighting. Meanwhile, the society should be taught to be tolerant, I don't doubt it, but rather generally tolerant, not to a certain group of people.

*facepalm*

The fact that homoesxuals (and blacks before them, and immigrants before and concurrent with them and so on) ARE living and HAVE lived as "excellent citizens, workers and friends" for decades (centuries, even) and STILL suffer discrimination, abuse, violence and marginalization for no good reason at all -- that means nothing to you? The fact that many still must hide their true selves if they wish to merely get treated without contempt, ridicule or abuse would make me pretty angry if I were gay. But you're saying that I should suck it up and take the abuse, insults, mischaracterizations and everything else and just be a good little boy. One question: would you? At some point, would you have had enough of subordinating a huge part of yourself -- how and whom you love -- just so your neighbors won't throw bricks at your windows or beat up your kid brother in school, or any number of other indignities? Where would you draw the line then? Here's another question, what if it weren't homosexuals being so treated, but something YOU were? Catholics, perhaps? Read the whole thread and imagine that every iteration of the word "homosexual" or "gay" or "lesbian" were exchanged with "Catholic", "Christian" or -- hell, why not! -- heterosexual! How would you feel if some of your basic rights were being questioned, abrogated or ignored outright? I'll wager you'd feel upset enough to demand equal treatment.

You have rejected to become acquainted with my opinion and/or accept it, just because you saw two words you don't like. Maybe that's partially my fault, but still, this kind of thinking started religious wars (and yeah, they do suck).

You are wrong. I have heard and understood your opinion, sir. I am all too well acquainted with it. I heard it everywhere. I heard it put into practice everytime I was called a fag for not dating and being in choir in high school (this despite the fact that I was going home and masturbating to mental images of their girlfriends...TMI? Sorry.).

It isn't a matter of "seeing two words I don't like" -- it'd be petty of me to pick on just that. It's a matter of hearing over and over again the hatred implied in using "gay" to mean "stupid" or "undesirable", or seeing any remotely effeminate young man harassed for dressing or acting how he wanted to act. Would you say that a hetero couple holding hands is not too much of a demonstration of affection for public display? Well, try it as a gay couple in much of America.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right,

No "maybe" about it. You are wrong.

but the only one thing I'm one hundred percent certain is that you take this discussion too emotionally. Calm down, and we will have a nice debate instead of a flamewar.

Oh, please. You've not posted a single rational argument since entering this thread. Not only that, but this is an emotional issue -- it deals with how and whom people love. I've not posted anything that could be considered over-emotional. The fact that you've just tried to paint me as somehow too emotional does get me a little piqued, but I've got a handle on it. It does make me think that you've got no arguments left and nowhere to go but to try and paint me as somehow irrational, when all you've got is "I just don't like them 'cause they're icky" -- which of us is reacting with emotion?

Also, please show me where I've flamed you. If you feel that I have, please report me to Moderation. Friend, we are having a nice debate. It's just that you can't seem to deal with the fact that your arguments are incredibly weak.

Maybe, but I think that people may be annoyed even more by blocked roads and obscenity. Still, annoying can only make the hatred deeper. That's why I would recommend less offensive methods, especially teaching people to tolerate differences.

Well, on that point we agree a little, actually. I think some -- some -- of the more flamboyant gay pride parades go too far sometimes. But I also think that displays of heterosexual pride go too far sometimes, too. I shrug, and I get on with life. I don't try to use these isolated incidents as a wholesale indictment of an entire group of people who are as diverse within that group as any other. There are gay people who are solidly closeted, and live constrained lifestyles because they feel they must. There are likely some who might even enjoy passing for straight or in some other way buttoning things down -- that's how diverse the gay community is. Judging every gay person by the two or three most indecorous pride parades is really very narrow-minded, and that's what you've done here.

And blocked roads? Really? So...anyone annoyed by blocked roads when the police have a funeral march, or the Irish march on St. Patrick's Day, or the Tournament of Roses clogs Pasadena every January or Macy's snarls midtown Manhattan every Thanksgiving...all those "annoyed" people hate the police, Irishmen, Roses and/or football and/or pageants, and Thanksgiving, respectively? Come on.

Hate doesn't spring from seeing assless pants in a parade. It comes from deep-seated attitudes passed on from past generations and an unwillingness to see the object of one's hatred as human. Why else the derogatory names? You can't truly hate someone without first at least partially de-humanizing them. Christ knew that, hence all the "love thy neighbor as thyself" exhortation. Well, if you want to excuse deliberate hate, that's fine. But to me, willful dehumanization is an order of magnitude worse than a gay couple kissing goodnight on the street in front of an apartment.

But that's just me.

Ok, I'm a mormon, so you'd think my belief is quite clear cut. But really, it isn't. I feel that you have the right to do whatever you want. If you are a homosexual, then ok. I personally do not agree with you're beliefs, but you have the right to choose that, and I wish you the best of luck. So thus, it all comes down to what YOU believe personally. If you think homosexuality is dead-wrong, then to you it is. If you think it's acceptable, then ok, that's your point of view.

Ok, I'm a mormon, so you'd think my belief is quite clear cut. But really, it isn't. I feel that you have the right to do whatever you want. If you are a homosexual, then ok. I personally do not agree with you're beliefs, but you have the right to choose that, and I wish you the best of luck. So thus, it all comes down to what YOU believe personally. If you think homosexuality is dead-wrong, then to you it is. If you think it's acceptable, then ok, that's your point of view.

I think that's the problem, the mormon church has just spent a lot of effort and money making sure people don't have that choice.

Ok, I'm a mormon, so you'd think my belief is quite clear cut. But really, it isn't. I feel that you have the right to do whatever you want. If you are a homosexual, then ok. I personally do not agree with you're beliefs, but you have the right to choose that, and I wish you the best of luck. So thus, it all comes down to what YOU believe personally. If you think homosexuality is dead-wrong, then to you it is. If you think it's acceptable, then ok, that's your point of view.

You're the mormon I currently respect the most.

I absolutely did not agree with the church spending that much money. I live in Mormontown, *About 20 miles north of SLC* and we get a lot of crap being distributed thru the TV about all the Prop 8 stuff. The one thing I don't like about my church is that they say: "Free Agency" and then turn around and are spending millions left and right to stop gay marriage.

I absolutely did not agree with the church spending that much money. I live in Mormontown, *About 20 miles north of SLC* and we get a lot of crap being distributed thru the TV about all the Prop 8 stuff. The one thing I don't like about my church is that they say: "Free Agency" and then turn around and are spending millions left and right to stop gay marriage.

You're a good first-time poster, and a mormon who acts respectable about this issue.

Good. Keep it up. :D

<snip>
But that's just me.
And I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for it. Your full post contained some of the best, most eloquent expressions of the failings of the anti-gay-rights arguments, of bigotry in general, that I have ever read, as well as excellent expressions of my own thoughts about rights and equality. Thank you.

Ok, I'm a mormon, so you'd think my belief is quite clear cut. But really, it isn't. I feel that you have the right to do whatever you want. If you are a homosexual, then ok. I personally do not agree with you're beliefs, but you have the right to choose that, and I wish you the best of luck. So thus, it all comes down to what YOU believe personally. If you think homosexuality is dead-wrong, then to you it is. If you think it's acceptable, then ok, that's your point of view.

I absolutely did not agree with the church spending that much money. I live in Mormontown, *About 20 miles north of SLC* and we get a lot of crap being distributed thru the TV about all the Prop 8 stuff. The one thing I don't like about my church is that they say: "Free Agency" and then turn around and are spending millions left and right to stop gay marriage.
And thank you for posting these. So many people come on this forum and present bigoted arguments and try to cloak themselves in the mantle of a religion, or religiousness in general, as some kind of support for their views. It's a kind of false appeal to authority to give their arguments weight. They presume to speak for whole religions, representing millions or billions of people, and they ignore or attack any member of said religions who don't agree with whatever stance they are selling, or they question the honesty of others who bring up that not all members of said religion agree with them.

Thank you for reminding us that religious people are not all plugged into a hive mind, and that even any given religion's official stance on an issue at any given time is not necessarily the thinking of all its members, nor necessarily written in stone as what that religion HAS to believe forever.

Everybody knows that woman and man are slightly (yea...) different and therefore can pass different kinds of values, examples. So if a child would get its upbringing just from parents of same sex, an unfilled niche could develop. Yeah, I can be wrong now, maybe it is just my opinion.

Men and men are slightly different, too. And women and women.

It's nonsensical anyway, of course, because parents are very rarely the only role models that a child will have.

I think he was he had legs, arms, walked, talked, ate, slept, worked, danced, and drank. He was happy, sad, angry, joyful, hungry, tired. He experienced pain as we do. Sounds pretty human to me.


Arguing that form defines function? That your shape defines you?

So - if I could use my technology to make a cat look like a human, act like a human, and express emtotion like a human, it would BECOME a human?

Or would it's genetic legacy make it a cat, just a human shaped one?


This goes back to wrote the Bible. There were some 150 different people or more. We have to trust that they got it right, else we are in really big trouble.


I wouldn't be in trouble, at all.

But, you're right - there's the point.

Christians argue for the infallibility of their book BASED ON the assumption that it was all inspired by the same entity, and that THAT entity was 'Jehovah God'.

What if the inspiration wasn't Jehovah God, but some other entity entirely? How would you KNOW?


No, I think you have a very interesting view points. I think you are an excellent debater. Seriously you really are very good at this.


Thank you.


I think you have a lot of points that make one stop and think and examine what they believe.


That's WHY I have lots of points - things have made me stop and examine what I believe.


You seem to have the ability to find all those obscure passages and stitch them together and then use those for your own ends.


Now now - in what way is it using them for my own ends? I don't care if you're a christian - Atheists don't get bonus points for conversions, we don't have a Great Commission, we're not encouraged to evangelise. Indeed, we don't have any churches or anything, so if I 'converted' you, I'd have nowhere to take you.

No - this isn't about me doing anything 'for my own ends'. This is about me sharing what I've seen, and questioning what is commonly CLAIMED as self-evident truths. Which - it turns out - is often self-contradictory and internally inconsistent.

You could, but you'd have to be willfully ignorant to do so.




Again, not my problem. If you're going to wade into a debate in English with such smug certaintly, you can't deflect criticism with "oh, sorry, I don't know what I'm saying" in any form. You opened the can, you have to deal with its contents. Hopefully you've learned just how insulting your choice of wording was and will change it as a result. I'm not holding my breath, though.


Nobody's asking you to. Rather, you're being pilloried for using inflammatory language to paint your picture.


Probably, but you took it definitely too serious. Whatever, point taken. Let’s now discuss without this incomprehension being reproached.


That's too bad. Frank and open conversations about sex and sexuality would eliminate the myths and misconceptions that lead to ignorant positions like yours.


Now that is your opinion, I don’t personally agree with.


True, some people are comfortable and happy believing that they are unassailably right...and those are the most foolish looking people in the debate.


I agree. I don’t think that my ration can be just the only one right. I listen to other people arguments and improve my outlook on life this way.


Thing is, I've not heard one solid argument against same-sex marriage. Not one that makes any logical sense whatsoever. They all wind up boiling down to "it's icky and we don't like it". Well, that's the rhetoric of an eight-year-old. How is it possible that society can let such juvenile reasoning determine public policy for every citizen?


Me too, so I don’t oppose them.


Dreadful, yes. Criminal, no. Not in my country, anyway. You have the right to be as loudly ignorant as you wish.


So, I’m still bad... Duh.


All kinds of "love" or "desire", or just homosexual? 'Cause you're basically saying you don't like going anywhere outside, watching TV, or reading any commercial media because ads using heterosexual lust as a selling tool have been around forever.
This is a disingenuous argument and is again willfully ignorant of reality.
Not sure how, but hey, as long as you're making stuff up, go on. I mean really, how is someone's expressed love or even lust in any way detrimental to yours?


For example, moral tension, but okay, that’s personal feeling. Well, probably my opinion on this is just too antiquated (But I still like it and think that the world would be better without lust and desire coming from everywhere).


I don't like White Pride parades, but they've got the right to march. Surely blatant racism is worse than blatant love.

I think the St. Patrick's Day parades are stupid and outmoded. The Irish haven't been a persecuted minority in decades. You know what I do? I don't go. I steer clear of downtown on that day. You know what I don't do? Insist that they stop marching. Why? Well, mostly because I'm an adult, but also because I'd want the right to assemble and march for my particular cause should the need ever arise. Live and let live. Or is that just too Christ-like for you?


I don’t doubt nobody’s right to have their own parade, I just say that it isn’t going to help turning society into more tolerant. Okay, and that I don’t personally like it.


Look, just come out and say it: you don't like homosexuals because you think the physical act of homosexual love is "icky", and it's something you'd never do, let alone accept. That's fine, but that doesn't mean being gay is wrong. It means you just don't like it. Well, thankfully, laws aren't passed based solely on what people don't like.


I have never said I don’t like homosexuals or homosexuality itself is wrong.


Where do you draw the line, and who gives you the authority to draw it?


That’s just my opinion. I don’t need any authority to form it.


The fact that homosexuals (and blacks before them, and immigrants before and concurrent with them and so on) ARE living and HAVE lived as "excellent citizens, workers and friends" for decades (centuries, even) and STILL suffer discrimination, abuse, violence and marginalization for no good reason at all -- that means nothing to you? The fact that many still must hide their true selves if they wish to merely get treated without contempt, ridicule or abuse would make me pretty angry if I were gay. But you're saying that I should suck it up and take the abuse, insults, mischaracterizations and everything else and just be a good little boy. One question: would you? At some point, would you have had enough of subordinating a huge part of yourself -- how and whom you love -- just so your neighbors won't throw bricks at your windows or beat up your kid brother in school, or any number of other indignities? Where would you draw the line then?



Here's another question, what if it weren't homosexuals being so treated, but something YOU were? Catholics, perhaps? Read the whole thread and imagine that every iteration of the word "homosexual" or "gay" or "lesbian" were exchanged with "Catholic", "Christian" or -- hell, why not! -- heterosexual! How would you feel if some of your basic rights were being questioned, abrogated or ignored outright? I'll wager you'd feel upset enough to demand equal treatment.


I just wrote that the society has to be taught to be tolerant and that’s IMO the only method which could definitely work. Yes, it probably wouldn’t be easy and would require some clever top assistance, but it’s the only thing which wouldn’t be like swapping dust under the carpet. Let’s say women rights – when exactly did women get their rights to vote (after WWI, I think), and when the world started to take them seriously (70-90)? You just can’t speed this process up by parades and outfit which doesn’t match general social norms, but by non-offensive informing. To be honest you made me realize that homosexuality isn’t the case that can be kept untouched, as I had thought before.


You are wrong. I have heard and understood your opinion, sir. I am all too well acquainted with it. I heard it everywhere. I heard it put into practice everytime I was called a fag for not dating and being in choir in high school (this despite the fact that I was going home and masturbating to mental images of their girlfriends...TMI? Sorry.).


Honestly, I doubt that you understood it (and this can be even my fault) – how can you then say that I have anything against homosexuals themselves and their relationships? I don’t. I hope you aren’t one of this guys who just know better? Because I see that you oppose this kind of thinking.


Oh, please. You've not posted a single rational argument since entering this thread. Not only that, but this is an emotional issue -- it deals with how and whom people love. I've not posted anything that could be considered over-emotional. The fact that you've just tried to paint me as somehow too emotional does get me a little piqued, but I've got a handle on it. It does make me think that you've got no arguments left and nowhere to go but to try and paint me as somehow irrational, when all you've got is "I just don't like them 'cause they're icky" -- which of us is reacting with emotion?
Also, please show me where I've flamed you.
If you feel that I have, please report me to Moderation. Friend, we are having a nice debate. It's just that you can't seem to deal with the fact that your arguments are incredibly weak.


What I meant is that you wrote just like you were trying to convert this discussion to some cat fight and I didn’t feel really comfortable with it. But I guess, I am just going to get accustomed to it, if this is your way. In my opinion debate isn’t about winning or proving that someone is wrong but about improving views through revision and comparison of them.


Well, on that point we agree a little, actually. I think some -- some -- of the more flamboyant gay pride parades go too far sometimes. But I also think that displays of heterosexual pride go too far sometimes, too. I shrug, and I get on with life. I don't try to use these isolated incidents as a wholesale indictment of an entire group of people who are as diverse within that group as any other. There are gay people who are solidly closeted, and live constrained lifestyles because they feel they must. There are likely some who might even enjoy passing for straight or in some other way buttoning things down -- that's how diverse the gay community is. Judging every gay person by the two or three most indecorous pride parades is really very narrow-minded, and that's what you've done here.


I don’t judge anyone, just share my opinion about what homosexuality fight for acceptation should/shouldn’t look like to be acceptable and reasonable.


And blocked roads? Really? So...anyone annoyed by blocked roads when the police have a funeral march, or the Irish march on St. Patrick's Day, or the Tournament of Roses clogs Pasadena every January or Macy's snarls midtown Manhattan every Thanksgiving...all those "annoyed" people hate the police, Irishmen, Roses and/or football and/or pageants, and Thanksgiving, respectively? Come on.


You would be surprised how many of them would be irritated, just if it concerned them directly. And that was just an example.
BTW I don’t think that blocking ways of communication shall be an accepted form of public assembly. But now it is just my opinion.


Hate doesn't spring from seeing assless pants in a parade.


But for me, it just can do even more harm because during them gay people usually aren’t pictured as normal, “just like me, someone would say” likable fellows. Maybe it’s just an error of the form.


It comes from deep-seated attitudes passed on from past generations and an unwillingness to see the object of one's hatred as human. Why else the derogatory names? You can't truly hate someone without first at least partially de-humanizing them. Christ knew that, hence all the "love thy neighbor as thyself" exhortation. But to me, willful dehumanization is an order of magnitude worse than a gay couple kissing goodnight on the street in front of an apartment.


I must agree here.


No "maybe" about it. You are wrong.

No offence, but this looks lovely combined with this:

True, some people are comfortable and happy believing that they are unassailably right...and those are the most foolish looking people in the debate.

Said a bunch of stuff supported by a few internet articles.

I appreciate your input and yes I do realise that i am beating a dead horse in a few areas, however there are things stated in those articles that support my statement. I said merely that Homosexuality is an anomoly, in which is a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.

According to your sources, the hypothesis is that a gay person is created partly due to genes and partly due to antibodies during pregnancy. Therefore, this is a clear deviation from regular human construct and is therefore an anomaly. Well actually mutation would be a closer definition. However, does this neccesarily make it wrong? Probably not.

I should have been more clear when I said that being gay is wrong. I meant it was wrong for me. I am not and will never be gay. Do I think that a person who is gay is wrong for choosing that life? A part of me says, yes, they are being stupid. However, that is overruled by the more logical side of me which is nuetral on the subject.

I honestly, don't think that "is homosexuality wrong?" is the right question we should be asking so much as "Does homosexuality cause harm?" Proving or disproving this question will lead to a more solid base as to whether or not it should be accepted or not.

Simplifying - things that don't annoy too many people would be great.

Yeah, I'm getting tired with this discussion too.

Sometimes annoying people is what it takes to get them to examine themselves and find out WHY they believe the things they believe.

Direct action of some kind is usually necessary to really facilitate change. (And I have to point out, it isn't always those who want the change that carry out the direct action).

Holy Cross Islands wrote:Sorry, equality, unless it occurs naturally, is a form of slavery.

Bullshit.

Sometimes annoying people is what it takes to get them to examine themselves and find out WHY they believe the things they believe.

Direct action of some kind is usually necessary to really facilitate change. (And I have to point out, it isn't always those who want the change that carry out the direct action).

Well, you may have some right, loud thinks also turn attention on the case, which may be vital for it. It is needed to find that Golden Mean.

Well, you may have some right, loud thinks also turn attention on the case, which may be vital for it. It is needed to find that Golden Mean.

But that mean isn't necessarily about not offending people. Sometimes 'fuck you' is actually the best thing you can say to someone.

It may be reasonable if it's true that the end justifies the means. Well, maybe sometimes, but IMO not in this case. I mean, if one is so stupid that the only one reasonable thing to say to him is "fuck you", he is probably not worth the attention.

It may be reasonable if it's true that the end justifies the means. Well, maybe sometimes, but IMO not in this case. I mean, if one is so stupid that the only one reasonable thing to say to him is "fuck you", he is probably not worth the attention.

Unfortunately, 'not worth the attnetion' isn't always an option.

Example - anyone who would block legalising gay marriage as a SECULAR institution, based on thei RELIGIOUS choices, is obviously 'not worth the attention' - but you gotta do it anyway. Because a nation that claims all people are born equal, and claims that there are inalienable rights CANNOT be allowed to default on both those ideals just because of an obstinate majority (or minority).

It may be reasonable if it's true that the end justifies the means. Well, maybe sometimes, but IMO not in this case. I mean, if one is so stupid that the only one reasonable thing to say to him is "fuck you", he is probably not worth the attention.

Then he must be MADE not worth the attention. He must be silenced, his voice must not be heard.

It's an easy mistake to make, confusing me with God.

Second Corinthians 6:14-7 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you..."

Ezra 10:11 "Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives."

The 'separate people' idea is God's, not mine.

I particularly like the "strange wives" part. I suppose that is still true. I think the intent though in this case is to not pick up any bad habits for your neighbors in near by countries. I don't think it says anywhere that we should not be involved in affairs of the State especially in our case which is a democracy. The render on to Caesar stuff was about paying your taxes, which most of do. You will also note the Church and State were not as seperated as in our times.

Also when they start talking about Belial it appears to be yet another time when he said "Don't worship Idols, not for any reason."

No, it was you. And you continue to contradict yourself. In fact, it seems that for the past, oh, 10 pages or so, you have not posted anything that did not contradict something you had posted earlier.

Have you just lost track of your own argument? Maybe you should take a break to re-read it.

Grave, posted two Biblical references which could point to staying out of the "Affairs of State" but I think those are more about not picking bad habits up from your neighbors in "foreign countries"

Your idea of contradiction and mine are a bit different.

Then he must be MADE not worth the attention. He must be silenced, his voice must not be heard.

Nice.

You know, your becoming more like the people you profess to despise as time goes on. Give it a few years and you'll be moving to the US to vote republican.

Nice.

You know, your becoming more like the people you profess to despise as time goes on. Give it a few years and you'll be moving to the US to vote republican.

1- I didn't say how.

2- Yeah, well, 8 years taking their crap makes me want to return it.

Grave, posted two Biblical references which could point to staying out of the "Affairs of State" but I think those are more about not picking bad habits up from your neighbors in "foreign countries"

Your idea of contradiction and mine are a bit different.

Yes, you tend to be way more flexible with your interpretations to make them fit your ideas.
Also, has it ever occured to you that in order to have a democracy, state and religion need to be separate? There is no other way for democracy to work.
And trying to get religious laws installed to force members of other religions/faiths or lack thereof to comply with YOUR beliefs runs contrary to everything democracy is about.

1- I didn't say how.

2- Yeah, well, 8 years taking their crap makes me want to return it.

1 - "He must be silenced, his voice must not be heard"? Not seeing too many ways that can be done in a good way.

2 - In the word of the seminal Disney film Cool Runnings you got to rise above it. I'm not a hypocrite and I find it distasteful to share my part of the political spectrum with people who want to silence others as some kind of revenge for the last American administration.

Grave, posted two Biblical references which could point to staying out of the "Affairs of State" but I think those are more about not picking bad habits up from your neighbors in "foreign countries"

Your idea of contradiction and mine are a bit different.
Your notion of "contradiction" seems to differ from quite a lot of people's.

1- I didn't say how.

2- Yeah, well, 8 years taking their crap makes me want to return it.
Do you plan to punish the whole world by making us sit through another 8 years of that shit, only this time with your name on it?

I appreciate your input and yes I do realize that i am beating a dead horse in a few areas, however there are things stated in those articles that support my statement. I said merely that Homosexuality is an anomaly, in which is a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
Your flawed thinking is a biological anomaly. We are fortunate for it's limited influence, else we would all be dead.

According to your sources, the hypothesis is that a gay person is created partly due to genes and partly due to antibodies during pregnancy. Therefore, this is a clear deviation from regular human construct and is therefore an anomaly.
It suggests that anti-bodies may be a means of activation. Nature is sloppy.
The so-called deviation from regular human construct does not show disorders that would distinguish them. Hence it would not be of consequence. It would not be appropriate to recognize them as deviants in society, anymore than you would for left-handed persons.

Deviations from regular human construct that should be recognized are flawed thinking, inability to recognize evidence, examine oneself, to look for evidence oneself. Those harm everyone.

I should have been more clear when I said that being gay is wrong. I meant it was wrong for me.
You must define wrong.

Do I think that a person who is gay is wrong for choosing that life? A part of me says, yes, they are being stupid.
It is not a justifiable to discriminate in this instance. Furthermore, you do not choose orientation, unless you also "choose" heterosexuality. This has already been pointed out before me. Name the point at which you decided to be attracted to someone. Neither do you operate your digestive system.

I honestly, don't think that "is homosexuality wrong?" is the right question we should be asking so much as "Does homosexuality cause harm?" Proving or disproving this question will lead to a more solid base as to whether or not it should be accepted or not.
It has already been done. You choose to ignore it, or you are incapable of doing otherwise. Furthermore, you do not start out by thinking people are harmful deviants from the "regular human construct". The whole point of deviant is that it is an exception; not the majority. It would be reasonable thinking that you would have to be the one to show that there is harmful deviation, which would suggest you somehow know more than the psychological community without having done research, it being apparent you have not.
Failing this, you would then stop discriminating it from the "regular human construct", the same way I would assume you do for those of other colour, or those who are left-handed; unless you intend to scientifically classify, bottom-up, all persons; because that is justly what you would have to do if you do not use harm as your starting point. But I do not think this is your intention.

1 - "He must be silenced, his voice must not be heard"? Not seeing too many ways that can be done in a good way.

2 - In the word of the seminal Disney film Cool Runnings you got to rise above it. I'm not a hypocrite and I find it distasteful to share my part of the political spectrum with people who want to silence others as some kind of revenge for the last American administration.

His views being made into reasons for jeer and jest. His voice not being heard equals him not being listened to. His views starting to bear the same value as Holocaust denial.

His views being made into reasons for jeer and jest. His voice not being heard equals him not being listened to. His views starting to bear the same value as Holocaust denial.

That isn't what to be silenced means in engish.

What you should have said is that those who espouse his views should be ignored. Even then I would have issues with that idea, even the ravings of a lunatic may occasionally contain grains of wisdom.

That isn't what to be silenced means in engish.

What you should have said is that those who espouse his views should be ignored. Even then I would have issues with that idea, even the ravings of a lunatic may occasionally contain grains of wisdom.

Certainly one of the wisest things I've ever read from you! :)

Certainly one of the wisest things I've ever read from you! :)

I repudiate the notion that anything I've ever written is wise.

Arguing that form defines function? That your shape defines you?

So - if I could use my technology to make a cat look like a human, act like a human, and express emotion like a human, it would BECOME a human?

Or would it's genetic legacy make it a cat, just a human shaped one?

The more human qualities that you gave to that cat, there it would be accepted as human. Let's use an easier example could you make an Ape into a Human. I think you can. A little less hair, the ability to speak. Make him or her a little taller. You have to get that Ape a soon as it was born and socialize it as a human. It would have to go to school and be treated as a human. It would be a reverse Tarzan or Jungle Book.

Back to the point. I think Jesus was a little more than human. He was unique, maybe an exemplary human, but human none the less.


I wouldn't be in trouble, at all.

But, you're right - there's the point.

Christians argue for the infallibility of their book BASED ON the assumption that it was all inspired by the same entity, and that THAT entity was 'Jehovah God'.

What if the inspiration wasn't Jehovah God, but some other entity entirely? How would you KNOW?

Well parts of the Bible were directly transcribed from The Direct Word of God. Moses took the 10 commandments directly from God. This is where faith comes in.



Thank you.

That's WHY I have lots of points - things have made me stop and examine what I believe.

By the way I finally have an answer for the Adam thing. I think that is when Death was invented for lack of a better word. Sin is not necessarily always the cause of death. So this would imply that before the Apple, Adam was immortal as he would never know death. So when God handed down his punishment and made it possible for him to die. That punishment alone would not have really been a big deal would it? He never knew anyone who died, he never saw his loved ones get old and die. Death would have no real meaning to him. He also had the enviable position of knowing 100% that there was a God and yet he still disobeyed. For crying out loud, put up a fence around, burn it down, encase it in a box. Put up a big sign nobody eats this fruit! Anyway from then on we had the human race we all know.


Now now - in what way is it using them for my own ends? I don't care if you're a christian - Atheists don't get bonus points for conversions, we don't have a Great Commission, we're not encouraged to evangelize. Indeed, we don't have any churches or anything, so if I 'converted' you, I'd have nowhere to take you. /QUOTE]

I hear you. I am confused by your motives as well. It was more of a compliment that your arguments are always well structured.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14669620]
No - this isn't about me doing anything 'for my own ends'. This is about me sharing what I've seen, and questioning what is commonly CLAIMED as self-evident truths. Which - it turns out - is often self-contradictory and internally inconsistent.

Yes and you stick me with some real tough ones too. Very thought provoking though.

There are Christian scriptures before the Bible. They do not even look Judaic. Have you read them? The Bible was created later. Why are you trusting these creators over the older scriptures? And then - why trust?

Yes, you tend to be way more flexible with your interpretations to make them fit your ideas.
Also, has it ever occured to you that in order to have a democracy, state and religion need to be separate? There is no other way for democracy to work.
And trying to get religious laws installed to force members of other religions/faiths or lack thereof to comply with YOUR beliefs runs contrary to everything democracy is about.

Says who. Israel did not have any separation of church and state. Some might argue today that they have some but not much.


For a religious person I don't know how one could separate them. You can ignore them which many of us do. It seems to me there is a continuum you either totally ignore the church or the church runs everything. I am not sure where I would place the United States. Although officially we are separated there is a lot of influence the church can bring.

I do think there are worse things than allowing homosexuals to marry. The only thing that annoyed me was saying it wasn't in the Bible. Okay so fine you don't believe in it, but don't tell me it is not in there because it is.


For the record I am more worried about the beam in my eye.

I particularly like the "strange wives" part. I suppose that is still true. I think the intent though in this case is to not pick up any bad habits for your neighbors in near by countries. I don't think it says anywhere that we should not be involved in affairs of the State especially in our case which is a democracy. The render on to Caesar stuff was about paying your taxes, which most of do. You will also note the Church and State were not as seperated as in our times.


"Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, and unto god that which is god's" is an argument FOR separation of church and state.

It's saying obey the sovereignty of temporal government in the mortal realm, for the spiritual rights and responsibilities are yours in a spiritual world.

Nope.

The more human qualities that you gave to that cat, there it would be accepted as human.


It seems unlikely - given the scope of human history. It's a fairly recent invention for white people to treat black people as human - and many people still treat homosexuals as somehow less thank equal.


Let's use an easier example could you make an Ape into a Human. I think you can. A little less hair, the ability to speak. Make him or her a little taller. You have to get that Ape a soon as it was born and socialize it as a human. It would have to go to school and be treated as a human. It would be a reverse Tarzan or Jungle Book.


That's not 'an easier example' - that's missing the point. Genetically, humans ARE basically 'an ape made into a human'.

The question would be - if you did the same thing to cats, would they be human, as we are?


Back to the point. I think Jesus was a little more than human. He was unique, maybe an exemplary human, but human none the less.


"A little more than human" = NOT human.


Well parts of the Bible were directly transcribed from The Direct Word of God. Moses took the 10 commandments directly from God. This is where faith comes in.


That's not just faith, though. That's the point.

If Satan wrote the Bible, it would look EXACTLY how it looks. So - how do you KNOW he didn't?

That's the problem with a lack of PERSONAL revelation... taught religion means believing other mortals can convey the divine.


By the way I finally have an answer for the Adam thing. I think that is when Death was invented for lack of a better word. Sin is not necessarily always the cause of death. So this would imply that before the Apple, Adam was immortal as he would never know death. So when God handed down his punishment and made it possible for him to die. That punishment alone would not have really been a big deal would it? He never knew anyone who died, he never saw his loved ones get old and die. Death would have no real meaning to him. He also had the enviable position of knowing 100% that there was a God and yet he still disobeyed. For crying out loud, put up a fence around, burn it down, encase it in a box. Put up a big sign nobody eats this fruit! Anyway from then on we had the human race we all know.


Sin is not the CAUSE of death - but it is what let's it happen. Hence the Catholic idea of original sin, and the necessity for Jesus to have been born of a virgin.

And that's where the story is internally inconsistent - if he's totally without sin, he's NOT human... AND he can't die. Just like Adam couldn't.

"Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, and unto god that which is god's" is an argument FOR separation of church and state.

It's saying obey the sovereignty of temporal government in the mortal realm, for the spiritual rights and responsibilities are yours in a spiritual world.

It doesn't mean you don't get involved in society. You are correct though.
What does society expect of you? Well along with a host of others. What issues are important to you. You vote on those issues and so on. Occasionally there is a common theme.

One gay being a general-use bitch =/= gays making fun of straight people, as TB alleged.

You said "name one" (or something similar), I was just pointing out that all of us who have been here a while know of at least one.

It doesn't mean you don't get involved in society. You are correct though.
What does society expect of you? Well along with a host of others. What issues are important to you. You vote on those issues and so on. Occasionally there is a common theme.
Of course, that is why we hold people accountable for their (influenced by, acted upon) beliefs in a democracy.

Bum tears are incredibly rare and the product of inadequate lubrication. I could show you how it works if you've experienced that problem before. It's a matter of technique.

:eek:

It seems unlikely - given the scope of human history. It's a fairly recent invention for white people to treat black people as human - and many people still treat homosexuals as somehow less thank equal.

Yes, you have a point. The problem comes when we allow something that was pretty much a sin to be considered acceptable. Now of course legally(US) it might be the case. In case of the Bible it is pretty clear it was to be discouraged. The same would also go for fornication, adultery, living in sin, incest, bestiality, and so on.

None of this of course has stopped place like Las Vegas and others from becoming Cities of Sin. Have you seen the recent commercials even Angels go there? So this is where I get conflicted. Is it morally correct is a tough one. Is this sin worse than any else. No of course not. To validate it though may be a problem.



That's not 'an easier example' - that's missing the point. Genetically, humans ARE basically 'an ape made into a human'.

The question would be - if you did the same thing to cats, would they be human, as we are?

Okay so cats. Well I got to pull out the cartoons on this one. I suppose you could although it would be difficult. Shrek comes to mind. Puss n Boots. If you are able to modify the cat enough it could appear human. It could be even treated like a human. I don't even think it has to be biological in nature. Androids and robots are getting closer and closer.




"A little more than human" = NOT human.

You might say the same about Rembrandt, Picasso, Einstein or Mozart. All were exceptional human beings although all were human.


That's not just faith, though. That's the point.

If Satan wrote the Bible, it would look EXACTLY how it looks. So - how do you KNOW he didn't?

That's the problem with a lack of PERSONAL revelation... taught religion means believing other mortals can convey the divine.

It is also up to each individual to search for the divine and to decide for themselves. Does this sound like the work of Satan. Knowing what we know about him and his crew? If it does then maybe you have a point. Seriously I don't hear anything Evil or Selfish in these words. They seem fairly Altruistic to me. Love your neighbor and all that.


Sin is not the CAUSE of death - but it is what let's it happen. Hence the Catholic idea of original sin, and the necessity for Jesus to have been born of a virgin.

Original sin. Yes I to have a problem with this doctrine. I am still trying to work it out on my own. I will let you know when I have something.


And that's where the story is internally inconsistent - if he's totally without sin, he's NOT human... AND he can't die. Just like Adam couldn't.

I do see your points and they are challenging. I will have to ponder them some more.

Now what will really get you is trying to figure out why things are sins. At least until you think, and realize that it is all the Judaic obsession with cleanliness.

The question, then, is why you are obsessed with cleanliness, and the cleanliness of others specifically.

What a dumb ?????

You said "name one" (or something similar), I was just pointing out that all of us who have been here a while know of at least one.
No I didn't. I said show me one example of gay people [plural] talking about straights the way TB did about gays.

Not one person doing it. But even just one example of "them" doing it, the way TB originally claimed. He used the plural, claiming that gay people are as insulting towards straights as he was being towards gays (and implying that they do it regularly).

Because in all seriousness, if TB is going to claim Fass as a defense for his obnoxious remarks, he won't have a leg to stand on.

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for it. Your full post contained some of the best, most eloquent expressions of the failings of the anti-gay-rights arguments, of bigotry in general, that I have ever read, as well as excellent expressions of my own thoughts about rights and equality. Thank you.

Most kind.

*snip*

I just wrote that the society has to be learned to be tolerant and that’s IMO the only method which could definitely work. Yes, it probably wouldn’t be easy and would require some clever top assistance, but it’s the only thing which wouldn’t be like swapping dust under the carpet. Let’s say women rights – when exactly did women get their rights to vote (after WWI, I think), and when the world started to take them seriously (70-90)? You just can’t speed this process up by parades and outfit which doesn’t match general social norms, but by non-offensive informing. To be honest you made me realize that homosexuality isn’t the case that can be kept untouched, as I had thought before.

*snip*

So now you want to say that gay rights have to wait because women's rights took so long? Are you serious? You DO understand that modes of communication during the struggle for women's suffrage (enacted by Amendment XIX, 1920) weren't NEARLY as fast, efficient or prevalent as modes of communication in the late 1960s, when the gay rights movement effectively went public, don't you? Women's rights needed the help of reproductive control, which they got with the birth control pill, also popularized in the late 1960s.

The Stonewall Riots happened in June of 1969, and that was the effective "out of the closet" moment for the gay movement. You're saying that, despite improvements in media and communication technology across the country between 1969 and 2009 (FORTY years, by the way), gay people should have to wait as long as women had to...because they just have to? That doesn't make any sense.

The first women's rights convention (sounds pretty out-in-the-open to me) was in the late 1840s. Suffrage in 1920, bra-burning in the late 1960s, as close to equality as ever by the 2008 election. So, 1848-2008 equals...160 years, max, from open meetings to de facto "liberation", if we use your logic. What you're saying, then, is that gay people should have to wait up to 160 years from 1969 before they're fully-integrated? 2129? Poppycock. Once again, I refer you to how the nation was linked in 1848. Telegraph, newspapers. Slow, not everywhere. How are we linked now? Internet, mobile phones, satellites for those plus TV. Instant, ubiquitous.

Insisting that gays wait as long as women did is just plain ludicrous. You seem to be reaching for any possible point to staunch the hemorrhage of your argument's reason. What else have you got?

Insisting that gays wait as long as women did is just plain ludicrous. You seem to be reaching for any possible point to staunch the hemorrhage of your argument's reason. What else have you got?
And of course, women just loved those 160 years. It was a nifty laff riot the whole time. Who wouldn't want to wait 160 years for basic human and civil rights? Seriously, if we could have done it faster than that, there's no way we would have. We liked being denied rights for 160 years. :rolleyes:

What a dumb ?????
There are no dumb questions, only dumb people.

I don't care, that's my whole view on homosexuality.

I don't care.

I know this is your only post so far and you may never come here again but let me quote you anyway.

Actually there is, and a complete line of sex toys meant for the separate, gay, lesbian, and heterosexual...

On a different note:

How can homosexuality be wrong?
Homosexuals are less likely to sleep around and have multiple partners (because really in today's society where will you find them? With our prejudice society its hard to be open)
SURPLUS POPULATION!- Homosexuality helps with that as well, creating a lack there of.

While your answer to the OP question is right at least in my opinion your reasoning is wrong. First do you have a source for that claim because I can say the same thing in regards to homosexual people I know not only that who cares? What does it prove if they sleep around or not, that doesn't show if homosexuality is right or wrong at all.

2nd, surplus population is not a good argument to say we should be allowing teh gayz because Earth is getting over populated so it is alright. Well no I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what the population of Earth is we should be allowing homosexuals the same rights as all other people as well. I have explained this in a few of my other posts in this thread in much more detail if you wish please go back and read them.


A Heterosexual male is 35% more likely to murder. Where is the real sin?

Again source? And what is this meant to prove?

The more human qualities that you gave to that cat, there it would be accepted as human.

Yes, it's called anthropomorphism and many use it to keep people honest. Especially when you study primates. However, that being said, it's often used incorrectly to dispute arguements.

Let's use an easier example could you make an Ape into a Human.

It's been done. The Premacks tried it with a chimp named Sarah and their daughter. The experiment ended about two years of age(If I remember right). The divergence of the two made it impossible to continue.

I think you can. A little less hair, the ability to speak.

Vocal cords are not up to the task.

Make him or her a little taller.

The hips make bipedalism near impossible as it would be too painful for long periods of time.

You have to get that Ape a soon as it was born and socialize it as a human. It would have to go to school and be treated as a human. It would be a reverse Tarzan or Jungle Book.


Again. Wouldn't work. Even ignoring what happened with the Premack's; A chimp throws temper tantrums like any kid any kid. However, this kid can pull your arm off.

Back to the point. I think Jesus was a little more than human. He was unique, maybe an exemplary human, but human none the less.

Well parts of the Bible were directly transcribed from The Direct Word of God. Moses took the 10 commandments directly from God. This is where faith comes in.

So you follow everything in Leviticus?

Says who. Israel did not have any separation of church and state. Some might argue today that they have some but not much.


For a religious person I don't know how one could separate them. You can ignore them which many of us do. It seems to me there is a continuum you either totally ignore the church or the church runs everything. I am not sure where I would place the United States. Although officially we are separated there is a lot of influence the church can bring.

I do think there are worse things than allowing homosexuals to marry. The only thing that annoyed me was saying it wasn't in the Bible. Okay so fine you don't believe in it, but don't tell me it is not in there because it is.


For the record I am more worried about the beam in my eye.

Because either you have a democracy, in which the people decide what the state does and doesn't do, or else you have a theocracy in which a book decides in lieu of whatever god you want to name.
You can't have it both ways.

Because either you have a democracy, in which the people decide what the state does and doesn't do, or else you have a theocracy in which a book decides in lieu of whatever god you want to name.
You can't have it both ways.

What about a Monarchy where we have one person at the top deciding what the state does and doesn't do or an oligarchy where we have few people at the top decking. :tongue:

And of course, women just loved those 160 years. It was a nifty laff riot the whole time. Who wouldn't want to wait 160 years for basic human and civil rights? Seriously, if we could have done it faster than that, there's no way we would have. We liked being denied rights for 160 years. :rolleyes:

As a queer woman, I'd like to argue that I've already put up with enough goddam waiting for equal rights thank you very much. The fact that women had to wait a century and a half for the VOTE is quite enough, so I think it's only fair that lesbians get full marriage rights by this afternoon.

OMG, is this thread still going!?

OMG, is this thread still going!?

There'll be another one in a couple of months, trust me.

There'll be another one in a couple of months, trust me.
:rolleyes:

No, it could be stickied. Or made into a sub-forum section. I would recommend an official statement.

No, it could be stickied. Or made into a sub-forum section. I would recommend an official statement.

Say what now?

The thread stickied, or the topic made into a sub-forum. Then there doesn't have to be so much thread-remaking.

The thread stickied, or the topic made into a sub-forum. Then there doesn't have to be so much thread-remaking.

But that would mean no more new threads!

Which would allow for other threads.

Most kind.


So now you want to say that gay rights have to wait because women's rights took so long? Are you serious?

[stuff]



What the heck, don't be ridiculous, I didn't say anything like that.

I don't think that gay rights should wait any longer, well - they shouldn't wait at all. If it was up to me, homosexual marriages would be already legalized and they could adopt children.

The problem is, that the society still would stay intolerant for a long time, attacking little brothers and bricking windows. What was I saying is that the process of making people more tolerant was slow and could be only sped up by education.

Female rights were just an example, not some restriction.

PS:
I am still in favor of legalizing gay marriages. Moreover, what someone who read my previous posts in this thread already know, I also don't object to homosexual people adopting children. Generally, I respect homosexuality.
Just for a reminder.

BTW thank you for making your attitude more pleasant.

Which would allow for other threads.

*Sigh* I was making a joke on how everything on NSG is constantly repeated and the same arguments are re-hashed over and over again.

Which would allow for other threads.
Don't worry, friend, other threads will come along regardless. I've seen days with half a dozen homosexuality-related threads on the front page, and NSG did not collapse as a result.

*Sigh* I was making a joke on how everything on NSG is constantly repeated and the same arguments are re-hashed over and over again.

I know, I ain't be here long, but I've already seen arguments repeated.

I know, I ain't be here long, but I've already seen arguments repeated.

Once you've been here for over a year, you've seen it all. At least count yourself lucky you weren't hear for the US election and the US primaries back in the Summer. That was a nightmare.

If I could, I'd rally all homosexuals in one place and execute them with a thermonuclear bomb, so they can burn together to hell and then continue burning and suffering there. That's how much I hate homosexuals. And heck, I'm serious.

They're regularly executed in LithuanianEmpire for example, and I support anyone who agrees with this.

Homosexuals are like a plague, and we should be the cure exterminating them.

If I could, I'd rally all homosexuals in one place and execute them with a thermonuclear bomb, so they can burn together to hell and then continue burning and suffering there. That's how much I hate homosexuals. And heck, I'm serious.

They're regularly executed in LithuanianEmpire for example, and I support anyone who agrees with this.

Homosexuals are like a plague, and we should be the cure exterminating them.

Yes yes, you're being a douche to get attention, we're all terribly impressed by your creativity in picking on fags. Now run along, grownups are talking.

As a queer woman, I'd like to argue that I've already put up with enough goddam waiting for equal rights thank you very much. The fact that women had to wait a century and a half for the VOTE is quite enough, so I think it's only fair that lesbians get full marriage rights by this afternoon.

What, you need equal rights as a woman AND as a queer? Now you're just being greedy.

Because either you have a democracy, in which the people decide what the state does and doesn't do, or else you have a theocracy in which a book decides in lieu of whatever god you want to name.
You can't have it both ways.


Good point. To my knowledge there has not been a Christian Theocracy so we have to wait. Assuming you wanted to get rid of all us. This is all we would have to do, setup a Christian Theocracy. Some or a lot of the Christian would relocate. You guys get a country where you can do whatever you want without interference from us. We get a country with the rule of the Church. Everyone is happy? For the record I would relocate. For some reason I still think people would still rain on our parade. Oh well I can dream.

If I could, I'd rally all homosexuals in one place and execute them with a thermonuclear bomb, so they can burn together to hell and then continue burning and suffering there. That's how much I hate homosexuals. And heck, I'm serious.

They're regularly executed in LithuanianEmpire for example, and I support anyone who agrees with this.

Homosexuals are like a plague, and we should be the cure exterminating them.

My, my, my, what a sad deluded person we have here. You've made your big scene, now bugger off.

Once you've been here for over a year, you've seen it all. At least count yourself lucky you weren't hear for the US election and the US primaries back in the Summer. That was a nightmare.

Bet that was a DRAAAAIIIIIN!

If I could, I'd rally all homosexuals in one place and execute them with a thermonuclear bomb, so they can burn together to hell and then continue burning and suffering there. That's how much I hate homosexuals. And heck, I'm serious.

Homosexuals are like a plague, and we should be the cure exterminating them.

Now, that's my boy!

Nah, not really. That's just sad.

And heck, I'm serious.

I really doubt it.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, please keep in mind i'm not saying that i believe this, but it is something i have thought about.

Could it be argued that homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake?

If the purpose of living would be to further the species by reproducing and evolving, then that would mean that gay people are a mutation which serves no purpose.

I apologise if that idea does offend anyone, it is not my intention to. It is just something i thought about since i first heard about Charles Darwin back in school. I'm sure there are many counter arguments, but as a point it does seem to be valid.

Could it be argued that homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake?
Only if you've evidence, and look at the rest of the evidence. That's how "arguments" are made. And what the hell is an "evolutionary mistake"?

If the purpose of living would be to further the species by reproducing and evolving, then that would mean that gay people are a mutation which serves no purpose. Except that is is the survivability of offspring, and not the amount, which counts. Read the damned thread. Failing that, research the subject. Thank you for simply emptying your files and not trying to learn.

Once you've been here for over a year, you've seen it all. At least count yourself lucky you weren't hear for the US election and the US primaries back in the Summer. That was a nightmare.

Oh god don't remind me.

If I could, I'd rally all homosexuals in one place and execute them with a thermonuclear bomb, so they can burn together to hell and then continue burning and suffering there. That's how much I hate homosexuals. And heck, I'm serious.

They're regularly executed in LithuanianEmpire for example, and I support anyone who agrees with this.

Homosexuals are like a plague, and we should be the cure exterminating them.

I don't know about anyone else but I actually lol at this.

Also when did Lithuania become an Empire I was under the impression that it was a Republic?

I could be wrong I don't know if it is or not could someone please enlighten me. :)

Before anyone jumps down my throat, please keep in mind i'm not saying that i believe this, but it is something i have thought about.

Could it be argued that homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake?

Anything "could be argued."

However, that particular argument was conclusively debunked several decades ago, so the only way to make it today would require that you ignore all scientific evidence on the subject.



If the purpose of living would be to further the species by reproducing and evolving, then that would mean that gay people are a mutation which serves no purpose.

No, actually, it wouldn't.


I apologise if that idea does offend anyone, it is not my intention to. It is just something i thought about since i first heard about Charles Darwin back in school. I'm sure there are many counter arguments, but as a point it does seem to be valid.
It only seems valid because your science teachers failed to educate you. Evolution and natural selection don't work the way you seem to think.

As a queer woman, I'd like to argue that I've already put up with enough goddam waiting for equal rights thank you very much. The fact that women had to wait a century and a half for the VOTE is quite enough, so I think it's only fair that lesbians get full marriage rights by this afternoon.
Most definitly you should.

But this has reminded me of something, Dingle please answer my question.
Dingle,if you think homosexuality is wrong, is it only between two guys? 'Cos surly you've watched lesbian porn. Am I right?

Let’s say women rights – when exactly did women get their rights to vote (after WWI, I think), and when the world started to take them seriously (70-90)? You just can’t speed this process up by parades and outfit which doesn’t match general social norms, but by non-offensive informing.
Are you really unaware that the suffragettes and the later feminists held lots of parades, at which they were deliberately offensive to the social norms of their times? You can't "speed the process up" in any other way than by being out in the open.

It's obvious you are all closed minded people not prepared to even entertain a thought that you don't agree with. Nobody has stated any counter argument, all you have done is insult me. I not going to try and defend myself as it would all fall on deaf ears. I won't be checking for replies.

Which would allow for other threads.

There are only 6.5 thread topics in NSG. The rest is spam.

It's obvious you are all closed minded people not prepared to even entertain a thought that you don't agree with. Nobody has stated any counter argument, all you have done is insult me. I not going to try and defend myself as it would all fall on deaf ears. I won't be checking for replies.
The counter-arguments were posted before us. Read them.
I don't think people don't care for your games.

It's obvious you are all closed minded people not prepared to even entertain a thought that you don't agree with. Nobody has stated any counter argument, all you have done is insult me. I not going to try and defend myself as it would all fall on deaf ears. I won't be checking for replies.

Errrrr bye then?

There are only 6.5 thread topics in NSG. The rest is spam.

Where'd the point 5 come from?

It only seems valid because your science teachers failed to educate you. Evolution and natural selection don't work the way you seem to think.

You really don't like the education system, do you?

You really don't like the education system, do you?
Quite the opposite, actually. I like the educational system a great deal, which is why I'm so disappointed when particular schools or teachers fail to do their jobs.

Where'd the point 5 come from?
Sometimes one of the tv/movie threads looks promising, but they always end up being just the same 4 people bitching about Cattlecar Gallactica. So I gave that half a point for hope.

Sometimes one of the tv/movie threads looks promising, but they always end up being just the same 4 people bitching about Cattlecar Gallactica. So I gave that half a point for hope.

That reminds me. I heard you didn't like Dune. The movie, sure, but the books are good.

Quite the opposite, actually. I like the educational system a great deal, which is why I'm so disappointed when particular schools or teachers fail to do their jobs.

You're a Yank, right? Don't you have the equivalent of Ofsted?

Sometimes one of the tv/movie threads looks promising, but they always end up being just the same 4 people bitching about Cattlecar Gallactica. So I gave that half a point for hope.

I hate that program with every fibre in my body. :mad:

I know this is your only post so far and you may never come here again but let me quote you anyway.



While your answer to the OP question is right at least in my opinion your reasoning is wrong. First do you have a source for that claim because I can say the same thing in regards to homosexual people I know not only that who cares? What does it prove if they sleep around or not, that doesn't show if homosexuality is right or wrong at all.

2nd, surplus population is not a good argument to say we should be allowing teh gayz because Earth is getting over populated so it is alright. Well no I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what the population of Earth is we should be allowing homosexuals the same rights as all other people as well. I have explained this in a few of my other posts in this thread in much more detail if you wish please go back and read them.




Again source? And what is this meant to prove?



Actually, I could get you the links that were my sources. I don't go blindly accusing, I'm not that stupid.

Surplus population is a great (and in my case comic) argument. IF THERE WERE MORE HOMOSEXUALS, THAN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE OVER POPULATION PROBLEM... Or you know, we can always just do what they did in The Lottery (they all picked numbers and people with certain numbers were stoned to death to keep the population down) Now, rather than killing people I'd just rather let to loving people be.

But that's just my opinion.

Why is it that people fear homosexuality. Its something in the brain, its medical and its meant to be there. Have we forgotten that the people that we base our society on today, namely the Greeks were a openly homosexual society? Socrates was homosexual- and I can back this up so don't say that I can't.
We should all be like the Greeks (our Banks have already taken the step- look at the architecture on some of them!) you know, minus the pedophilia. That's bad.

That reminds me. I heard you didn't like Dune. The movie, sure, but the books are good.

My only issue with the books is that their covers are too far apart.

My only issue with the books is that their covers are too far apart.
My issue was that I have always hated plots of the type "You only THOUGHT you were manipulating me when actually I was manipulating you into thinking you were manipulating me!" and Dune was too full of that.

Actually, I could get you the links that were my sources. I don't go blindly accusing, I'm not that stupid.

Well if you could that would be great.

Surplus population is a great (and in my case comic) argument. IF THERE WERE MORE HOMOSEXUALS, THAN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE OVER POPULATION PROBLEM... Or you know, we can always just do what they did in The Lottery (they all picked numbers and people with certain numbers were stoned to death to keep the population down) Now, rather than killing people I'd just rather let to loving people be.

But that's just my opinion.

No it isn't because it implies that if we didn't have such a large population then homsexuality would be wrong and we shouldn't allow them the same rights as others. Where as it doesn't matter when it is homosexuality is never wrong if someone is attracted to people of the same sex then so be it, it isn't right or good but it isn't wrong and bad either. As I say other posts I have gone into more detail about this.

Why is it that people fear homosexuality. Its something in the brain, its medical and its meant to be there. Have we forgotten that the people that we base our society on today, namely the Greeks were a openly homosexual society? Socrates was homosexual- and I can back this up so don't say that I can't.
We should all be like the Greeks (our Banks have already taken the step- look at the architecture on some of them!) you know, minus the pedophilia. That's bad.

I don't know man, maybe because it is different fear of the unknown and all, but I am not to sure why people fear it or have an aversion towards them.

Oh and hey thanks for replying.

Well clearly it is wrong if homosexuality is not wrong then two men/women should be able to conceive a baby and they cannot therfore it is wrong.

I have never understood most religions, it's supposed to be all about creating offspring, but the very act itself is condemned in the most unnatural ways possible. And technological advance, might make it possible one day for two men or two women to make babies, would it still be wrong then? Or would god go pro-gay, and how do we know, he isn't already, maybe that's why we notice more and more people becoming gay, he's just trying to stop the inevitable overpopulation in its tracks?

My issue was that I have always hated plots of the type "You only THOUGHT you were manipulating me when actually I was manipulating you into thinking you were manipulating me!" and Dune was too full of that.
Dune is definitely one of those stories that I wonder why the author is telling it to me. But I'll save further comments for one of those .5 threads. ;)

I have never understood most religions, it's supposed to be all about creating offspring, but the very act itself is condemned in the most unnatural ways possible. And technological advance, might make it possible one day for two men or two women to make babies, would it still be wrong then? Or would god go pro-gay, and how do we know, he isn't already, maybe that's why we notice more and more people becoming gay, he's just trying to stop the inevitable overpopulation in its tracks?

Nah man, that's impossible. You might not know how the human anatomy works. But, 2 men can't "make" a baby. Nor can 2 woman.

Nah man, that's impossible. You might not know how the human anatomy works. But, 2 men can't "make" a baby. Nor can 2 woman.

Two women in theory already can. Scientists have managed it for several animals; though no human couple has done this as far as I know.

Two men will become possible once a good solution for the lack of womb has been created.

I hate that program with every fibre in my body. :mad:

Really? Hate? With every fiber of your body? A TV programme?

Man people are strange.:D

Well if you could that would be great.



No it isn't because it implies that if we didn't have such a large population then homsexuality would be wrong and we shouldn't allow them the same rights as others. Where as it doesn't matter when it is homosexuality is never wrong if someone is attracted to people of the same sex then so be it, it isn't right or good but it isn't wrong and bad either. As I say other posts I have gone into more detail about this.



I don't know man, maybe because it is different fear of the unknown and all, but I am not to sure why people fear it or have an aversion towards them.

Oh and hey thanks for replying.


You're welcome for replying.

And my surplus population argument is a joke taken from A Christmas Carol, ("...if the poor are going to die they better do it! And decrease the surplus population!")

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/43/RPP43_08_fatal.pdf
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7867

I couldn't find one of the other links that I used, but here's 2 out of the three.

Two women in theory already can. Scientists have managed it for several animals.
Two men will become possible once a good solution for the lack of womb has been created.

Axlotl tanks. If you can trust the Tleilaxu, that is. Dur knows what they put in their gholas.

Two women in theory already can. Scientists have managed it for several animals; though no (known) human couple has done this as far as I know.

Two men will become possible once a good solution for the lack of womb has been created.

Huh?

Do you have a source?

Huh?

Do you have a source?

It's a matter of general knowledge (common sense?) That science has found a way to produce sperm from the cells of a woman.

Two women in theory already can. Scientists have managed it for several animals; though no human couple has done this as far as I know.

How exactly does that work?

Huh?

Do you have a source?
Any paper on cloning will work.

Cloning uses an egg cell and a donor cell. The nucleus and unwanted genetic information from the egg cell are removed, creating a "blank" or "empty" egg cell. The nucleus from the donor cell is then inserted into the egg cell. (This process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer.)

The adult cell can come from a male or from a female, so it's just as easy to do this with two female cells (the donor and the egg) as it is with a cell from a male and a cell from a female (the donor and the egg).

So it is not without the help of a male?

So it is not without the help of a male?

You misread. You need one egg cell and one donor cell, which can be another egg or a sperm cell.

So it is not without the help of a male?
Huh?

No, a male is not required at any point. A female is required, because a mature egg cell is necessary for this process, but no male cell or male DNA is necessary. Indeed, there is some evidence that female genetic material may be "stronger" and therefore better suited for this, though personally I don't think the evidence is conclusive yet.

Huh?

No, a male is not required at any point. A female is required, because a mature egg cell is necessary for this process, but no male cell or male DNA is necessary. Indeed, there is some evidence that female genetic material may be "stronger" and therefore better suited for this, though personally I don't think the evidence is conclusive yet.

So, it is impossible for to guys though right? I mean even is there was a way to make up for the lack of a womb, 2 guys' DNA couldn't be mixed could they?

So, it is impossible for to guys though right? I mean even is there was a way to make up for the lack of a womb, 2 guys' DNA couldn't be mixed could they?

It is impossible for two men because it requires an egg, which men cannot produce.

So, it is impossible for to guys though right? I mean even is there was a way to make up for the lack of a womb, 2 guys' DNA couldn't be mixed could they?
No, you could not combine two sperm in this manner. The egg cell is required for this process. In theory it might be possible to create an artificial egg cell, but that would still mean you need the egg cell.

Sperm are simply packets of DNA with flagella and energy-consuming bodies to propel them. Sperm do not have any of the machinery needed to create an embryo.

So, it is impossible for to guys though right? I mean even is there was a way to make up for the lack of a womb, 2 guys' DNA couldn't be mixed could they?

Not yet but I wonder how long it will take for Stem Cell research to sort that one out?

No, you could not combine two sperm in this manner. The egg cell is required for this process. In theory it might be possible to create an artificial egg cell, but that would still mean you need the egg cell.

Sperm are simply packets of DNA with flagella and energy-consuming bodies to propel them. Sperm do not have any of the machinery needed to create an embryo.

This thread is more informative (and more interesting) than any science lesson I've been to.

No, you could not combine two sperm in this manner. The egg cell is required for this process. In theory it might be possible to create an artificial egg cell, but that would still mean you need the egg cell.

Sperm are simply packets of DNA with flagella and energy-consuming bodies to propel them. Sperm do not have any of the machinery needed to create an embryo.
but could you have an egg, remove its dna and put 2 sperm in it and have it start to develop? .....that doesnt sound right...

You're welcome for replying.

And my surplus population argument is a joke taken from A Christmas Carol, ("...if the poor are going to die they better do it! And decrease the surplus population!")

Well ok then.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/43/RPP43_08_fatal.pdf
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7867

I couldn't find one of the other links that I used, but here's 2 out of the three.

The second one is a blog so that would be discounted. But regardless either of these sources in regards to the arguments they support are useless because it doesn't matter if homosexuals or heterosexuals are more violent or not that is a separate matter altogether. Same when people say gays last in longer relationships that is a bs argument too, because frankly why should it matter how long a relationship lasts? That is not the issue here because it is still right in itself, as I said in my original post in reply to your first post, regardless of these stats and what they say even if they said that homosexuals relationships lasted an average of 6 months it is not important if homosexuality is wrong or not.

Well ok then.



The second one is a blog so that would be discounted. But regardless either of these sources in regards to the arguments they support are useless because it doesn't matter if homosexuals or heterosexuals are more violent or not that is a separate matter altogether. Same when people say gays last in longer relationships that is a bs argument too, because frankly why should it matter how long a relationship lasts? That is not the issue here because it is still right in itself, as I said in my original post in reply to your first post, regardless of these stats and what they say even if they said that homosexuals relationships lasted an average of 6 months it is not important if homosexuality is wrong or not.

However, if homosexuality has a lesser murder rate, a longer relationship rate than the argument could be presented that human beings on a social level operate better as a homosexual and thus should be allowed all the rights.

I'm just theorizing here.

Not yet but I wonder how long it will take for Stem Cell research to sort that one out?
There has already been a lot of work on this, because obviously the limiting factor for these kinds of cloning therapies is the need for mature oocytes (egg cells). If we had a means of producing oocytes other than harvesting them from women's bodies, that would be very nice.

Unfortunately, you still would need women for this, because male sperm cells can't be used to produce female gametes (they simply don't have the information needed). You could harvest cell lines from females and then use those to artificially induce formation of oocytes, in theory, but until we are able to literally build a cell from nothing I don't think there's going to be any way to remove the need for female material in this process.

but could you have an egg, remove its dna and put 2 sperm in it and have it start to develop? .....that doesnt sound right...
Erm, well, you can't just take out the nucleus and shove two sperm nuclei in there, no. But yes, you could take out the nucleus of an egg and replace it with genetic material from more than one sperm.

Erm, well, you can't just take out the nucleus and shove two sperm nuclei in there, no. But yes, you could take out the nucleus of an egg and replace it with genetic material from more than one sperm.
it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna? is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna? is it something in the sperm itself? will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?

Are you really unaware that the suffragettes and the later feminists held lots of parades, at which they were deliberately offensive to the social norms of their times? You can't "speed the process up" in any other way than by being out in the open.

Eh.

Those parades probably did speed up gaining full political rights. But they didn't speed up gaining serious social respect, which was built through years. When did women start to fill the most important positions? DECADES after receiving their proper position in law.
IMO only the education can speed this process up, not fancy protests.

It's respect of the general society what homosexuality need right now, and what are they fighting for. They do have political rights like everybody, but who would elect one of them? And this stretches through all spheres of life - from upbringing children to politics.

There has already been a lot of work on this, because obviously the limiting factor for these kinds of cloning therapies is the need for mature oocytes (egg cells). If we had a means of producing oocytes other than harvesting them from women's bodies, that would be very nice.

Unfortunately, you still would need women for this, because male sperm cells can't be used to produce female gametes (they simply don't have the information needed). You could harvest cell lines from females and then use those to artificially induce formation of oocytes, in theory, but until we are able to literally build a cell from nothing I don't think there's going to be any way to remove the need for female material in this process.

Ahhh thank you Bottle.

it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna? is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna? is it something in the sperm itself? will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?
Hoo, fun questions!

Let's see...

1) it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna?

When an egg cell is fertilized, this will trigger "egg activation." Egg activation is a cascade of events that will prepare the egg for development. I'm not up to speed on the most recent research in this field, but I believe that the idea is that sperm may carry a particular protein or signaling molecule that cues the egg activation pathway. The pathway itself (all the proteins and such that cause the changes in the egg cell) are contained in the egg itself.

It is possible to trigger this pathway artificially. I think electric current has been used to do it, actually, though I'm not positive on that.

Now, if you want to talk about how the zygote "gets going" in terms of differentiating into various types of cells, that is almost exclusively due to the cytoplasm of the egg cell. The egg's cytoplasm isn't a uniform mixture; it's actually got a lot of gradients of mRNAs and proteins that the egg cell has made. When the zygote starts "cleaving" or partitioning off into more cells, each of those cells will have a particular mixture in its own cytoplasm. That mixture will have a very large impact on what path of differentiation that cell will take.


2) is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna?

The egg's DNA is used to make the proteins and such that are involved in the egg activation pathway. However, these proteins are primarily found outside the cell's nucleus (in the cytoplasm).


3) is it something in the sperm itself?

While sperm most likely carry a signaling molecule that helps to trigger the egg activation pathway, sperm don't carry most of the proteins and organelles that actually cause egg activation. Picture it as if the sperm were a mail carrier who delivers a letter from Grandma that tells you she's coming to visit. That letter might trigger a fit of house-cleaning or a sudden urge to fill the fridge with real food. The message causes other processes to be set in motion.


4) will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?

I'm not positive I understand what you're asking, here. I think you're getting at the fact that sperm cells are haploid, and each contain only half the DNA needed for a complete new person-cell. Normally, a haploid sperm and a haploid egg each contribute half the DNA needed, resulting in a diploid zygote. However, in theory, you could use the DNA from two sperm to produce that diploid cell. But neither sperm has the cytoplasmic machinery and proteins necessary for a zygote, so you'd have to take that genetic material and put it into a "blank" egg.


It's also important, as a side note, to remember the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories in your cells, and they have their own DNA. When we talk about the sperm and egg each contributing half of your DNA, what that really refers to is NUCLEAR DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is another story. While both egg and sperm cells have mitochondria, the mitochondria from the sperm cell don't end up contributing genetically to the zygote and the daughter cells down the line. So all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother's cells.

Hoo, fun questions!

Let's see...

1) it seems like there must be some "starter" in the egg that makes it get going once the sperm cell gets to the nucleus. is that contained in the dna?

When an egg cell is fertilized, this will trigger "egg activation." Egg activation is a cascade of events that will prepare the egg for development. I'm not up to speed on the most recent research in this field, but I believe that the idea is that sperm may carry a particular protein or signaling molecule that cues the egg activation pathway. The pathway itself (all the proteins and such that cause the changes in the egg cell) are contained in the egg itself.

Now, if you want to talk about how the zygote "gets going" in terms of differentiating into various types of cells, that is almost exclusively due to the cytoplasm of the egg cell. The egg's cytoplasm isn't a uniform mixture; it's actually got a lot of gradients of mRNAs and proteins that the egg cell has made. When the zygote starts "cleaving" or partitioning off into more cells, each of those cells will have a particular mixture in its own cytoplasm. That mixture will have a very large impact on what path of differentiation that cell will take.


2) is it part of the egg nucleus seperate from its dna?

The egg's DNA is used to make the proteins and such that are involved in the egg activation pathway. However, these proteins are primarily found outside the cell's nucleus (in the cytoplasm).


3) is it something in the sperm itself?

While sperm most likely carry a signaling molecule that helps to trigger the egg activation pathway, sperm don't carry most of the proteins and organelles involved in this process.


4) will 2 sperm sets of dna share one space--one you remove the sperm part is dna, dna so that it will do what any complete set of dna will do?

I'm not positive I understand what you're asking, here. I think you're getting at the fact that sperm cells are haploid, and each contain only half the DNA needed for a complete new person-cell. Normally, a haploid sperm and a haploid egg each contribute half the DNA needed, resulting in a diploid zygote. However, in theory, you could use two sperm to produce that diploid cell.


It's also important, as a side note, to remember the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories in your cells, and they have their own DNA. When we talk about the sperm and egg each contributing half of your DNA, what that really refers to is NUCLEAR DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is another story. While both egg and sperm cells have mitochondria, the mitochondria from the sperm cell don't end up contributing genetically to the zygote and the daughter cells down the line. So all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother's cells.

What kind of scientist are you?

What kind of scientist are you?

The worst kind! Your worst nightmare, a scientist without a dick!:D

However, if homosexuality has a lesser murder rate, a longer relationship rate than the argument could be presented that human beings on a social level operate better as a homosexual and thus should be allowed all the rights.

I'm just theorizing here.

Well no because then that would imply that heterosexuals shouldn't be getting all rights. They should get the same rights as other human beings because they are human beings as well and since there is nothing that affects other human beings in what they do then it should be of no concern to people and should be granted the same equal rights as all other people. As I say it doesn't matter if homosexuals are less likely to commit murder that doesn't change the fact that they should get more rights or less rights for their sexuality.

I wish I wasn't so tired because then I could make my point more coherent.

What kind of scientist are you?
The charming sort, you jackoff.

(I kid, I kid.)

I'm currently working on my PhD in neuroscience. Most of my background is in pharmacology, neuroanatomy, and cellular physiology.

The worst kind! Your worst nightmare, a scientist without a dick!:D
ROFL.
The charming sort, you jackoff.
:(
(I kid, I kid.)
:D
I'm currently working on my PhD in neuroscience. Most of my background is in pharmacology, neuroanatomy, and cellular physiology.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of what you said flying strait over my head.

Well no because then that would imply that heterosexuals shouldn't be getting all rights. They should get the same rights as other human beings because they are human beings as well and since there is nothing that affects other human beings in what they do then it should be of no concern to people and should be granted the same equal rights as all other people. As I say it doesn't matter if homosexuals are less likely to commit murder that doesn't change the fact that they should get more rights or less rights for their sexuality.

I wish I wasn't so tired because then I could make my point more coherent.

You're making sense from where I sit, for whatever that's worth.

You could also look at it from the other direction, of course:

Individuals who grew up in abusive households are known to be far more likely to engage in violent behavior than individuals who did not grow up in abusive households. However, I don't see anybody pushing laws that would bar abuse victims from getting married simply because they're more likely to abuse somebody. That would be pretty fucked up, wouldn't it?

Just because a particular group may be more statistically likely to engage in violence, doesn't mean you should strip rights away from individual members of that group.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of what you said flying strait over my head.

Haha, sorry, I'm not trying to brag or show off or anything, just trying to be honest about my background.

I actually work with embryos (though they're chicken embryos rather than human), so this topic is something I've learned a lot about. However, I'm not a medical doctor, I don't work with stem cells, and I'm not a geneticist.

Haha, sorry, I'm not trying to brag or show off or anything, just trying to be honest about my background.

I actually work with embryos (though they're chicken embryos rather than human), so this topic is something I've learned a lot about. However, I'm not a medical doctor, I don't work with stem cells, and I'm not a geneticist.

Wait! Are you saying that you are a chicken doctor then?:D

You're making sense from where I sit, for whatever that's worth.

You could also look at it from the other direction, of course:

Individuals who grew up in abusive households are known to be far more likely to engage in violent behavior than individuals who did not grow up in abusive households. However, I don't see anybody pushing laws that would bar abuse victims from getting married simply because they're more likely to abuse somebody. That would be pretty fucked up, wouldn't it?

Just because a particular group may be more statistically likely to engage in violence, doesn't mean you should strip rights away from individual members of that group.
That would be fucked up. Considering how much domestic violence there is, there would be very few marriages.
Haha, sorry, I'm not trying to brag or show off or anything, just trying to be honest about my background.

I actually work with embryos (though they're chicken embryos rather than human), so this topic is something I've learned a lot about. However, I'm not a medical doctor, I don't work with stem cells, and I'm not a geneticist.
Oh, so you make chickens out of scrambled eggs? Sounds interesting.

Wait! Are you saying that you are a chicken doctor then?:D

I'm definitely not a chicken doctor, or at least not a very good one, because I decapitate them.

Hmm. Although...I've never yet received any complaints from my "patients."


Oh, so you make chickens out of scrambled eggs? Sounds interesting.

Haha, funny you should say that, because I used to love scrambled eggs but now I can't make em any more. I crack open eggs to find embryos every day at work, and because of that I'm unable to bring myself to crack eggs in the kitchen. Embryos are fascinating and cool, but they're sure as hell not appetizing. :P

Haha, funny you should say that, because I used to love scrambled eggs but now I can't make em any more. I crack open eggs to find embryos every day at work, and because of that I'm unable to bring myself to crack eggs in the kitchen. Embryos are fascinating and cool, but they're sure as hell not appetizing. :P

Ever tried Balut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(egg)) ;) ?

I'm definitely not a chicken doctor, or at least not a very good one, because I decapitate them.

Hmm. Although...I've never yet received any complaints from my "patients."

Aww, that's mean. Do you really butcher chickens?

Haha, funny you should say that, because I used to love scrambled eggs but now I can't make em any more. I crack open eggs to find embryos every day at work, and because of that I'm unable to bring myself to crack eggs in the kitchen. Embryos are fascinating and cool, but they're sure as hell not appetizing. :P

Great, now I'm never gonna be able to eat eggs again. Thank you. :mad:

Ever tried Balut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(egg)) ;) ?
Millions of gallons of NO FUCKING WAY. lol

Ever tried Balut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(egg)) ;) ?

Grrr! Now I really am never gonna eat eggs again.

Aww, that's mean. Do you really butcher chickens?

No, I don't butcher them, I just decapitate them. I only dissect out the brainstem. I don't cut up any of the rest of the body.

And technically I only cut up the embryos. I've done a very small amount of work on hatchling chicks, but I've never worked with adult chickens.


Great, now I'm never gonna be able to eat eggs again. Thank you. :mad:
Hey, don't worry, the eggs you buy in the store don't have embryos in them.

No, I don't butcher them, I just decapitate them. I only dissect out the brainstem. I don't cut up any of the rest of the body.

And technically I only cut up the embryos. I've done a very small amount of work on hatchling chicks, but I've never worked with adult chickens.
Yeah but aren't embryos tiny? How can you cut something that small?

Wait? You killed chicks as well!?

Hey, don't worry, the eggs you buy in the store don't have embryos in them.

Thank fuck.

Yeah but aren't embryos tiny? How can you cut something that small?

"Embryo" includes everything from fertilization to hatching. A chick embryo that is just about to break out of its shell is still an embryo, until it's out of the shell.

In the species I work with, it takes about 21 days for the embryo to go from fertilization to hatching. I work mostly with embryos that are 13 days along. They're about the size of an adult man's thumb.


Wait? You killed chicks as well!?

Yes. It's not fun. Baby chickens are fluffy and they make adorable peeping noises. I do not like using them.

Eh.

Those parades probably did speed up gaining full political rights. But they didn't speed up gaining serious social respect, which was built through years. When did women start to fill the most important positions? DECADES after receiving their proper position in law.
IMO only the education can speed this process up, not fancy protests.

It's respect of the general society what homosexuality need right now, and what are they fighting for. They do have political rights like everybody, but who would elect one of them? And this stretches through all spheres of life - from upbringing children to politics.

Well, it's a good thing then that this issue is about gaining full, legal, "political", civil rights for gays, as opposed to general "serious social respect", isn't it?

Oh, and in answer to your question of "who would elect one of them?" (:rolleyes:) One example: Massachusetts. See Senator Barney Franks.

Great post, Bottle! One thing I think I can confirm (partially, anyways):


When an egg cell is fertilized, this will trigger "egg activation." Egg activation is a cascade of events that will prepare the egg for development. I'm not up to speed on the most recent research in this field, but I believe that the idea is that sperm may carry a particular protein or signaling molecule that cues the egg activation pathway. The pathway itself (all the proteins and such that cause the changes in the egg cell) are contained in the egg itself.

It is possible to trigger this pathway artificially. I think electric current has been used to do it, actually, though I'm not positive on that.

Yes, I believe electric current has been used - in animal cells anyways. From what I've read, it is the method generally used in cloning a variety of animals. I haven't looked closely enough into the reasons that human cloning has thus far failed, so I'm not sure if the electric current method works in egg cells. It's my limited understanding that human cloning seems to have failed because of incomplete transfer of the DNA strands, though, so it's very possible that the electric current would work just as well in a human egg.

And because someone will probably ask: I'm currently pursuing my Ph.D. in Bioengineering. My thesis project involves neural differentiation of human embryonic stem cells and their use in recovery from stroke.


Yeah but aren't embryos tiny? How can you cut something that small?

I've worked with mouse embryos - usually at about day 14 (2/3 of the way through gestation). We do it under a dissecting microscope. It takes some practice to be able to properly manipulate them that way and you generally mangle a few when you first start trying, but it is possible.

But it's interesting to note that, with the right equipment, you can manipulate single cells. For example, one common fertility problem sperm with motility defects - the sperm contain everything they need to fertilize the egg, but they just can't get there. When that happens, a lab carrying out in vitro fertilization can inject a sperm cell directly into an egg cell.

Well no because then that would imply that heterosexuals shouldn't be getting all rights. They should get the same rights as other human beings because they are human beings as well and since there is nothing that affects other human beings in what they do then it should be of no concern to people and should be granted the same equal rights as all other people. As I say it doesn't matter if homosexuals are less likely to commit murder that doesn't change the fact that they should get more rights or less rights for their sexuality.

I wish I wasn't so tired because then I could make my point more coherent.

Well, if we look at the past, criminals have had their rights such as voting stripped.

I just want to make the point I'm 100% for homosexual rights, and I'm just arguing because I enjoy a good debate.

In my chauvinistic ideals and opinions I believe that there are people that should not be allowed to procreate, and if they do their children should be taken from them. This is a very 1984 idea, but hey I'm arguing different points to argue them. If extremely narrow minded, skin heads or neo-nazis were to procreate it would be the civil approach to take the children away and raise them in a more suitable environment because in the end they would most likely end up as skin heads or neo-nazi themselves (nature vs nurture on the side of nurture)

Thus some people should not have rights such as raising their own children because by raising their children in a certain way it would be a disservice to themselves and the country. I would much rather have hippies raise children than right wing conservatives.

I've gotten so tangential I should be drawn and quartered. I'm going to stop now.

Well, if we look at the past, criminals have had their rights such as voting stripped.

I just want to make the point I'm 100% for homosexual rights, and I'm just arguing because I enjoy a good debate.

In my chauvinistic ideals and opinions I believe that there are people that should not be allowed to procreate, and if they do their children should be taken from them. This is a very 1984 idea, but hey I'm arguing different points to argue them. If extremely narrow minded, skin heads or neo-nazis were to procreate it would be the civil approach to take the children away and raise them in a more suitable environment because in the end they would most likely end up as skin heads or neo-nazi themselves (nature vs nurture on the side of nurture)

Thus some people should not have rights such as raising their own children because by raising their children in a certain way it would be a disservice to themselves and the country. I would much rather have hippies raise children than right wing conservatives.

I've gotten so tangential I should be drawn and quartered. I'm going to stop now.

That doesn't have much to do with whether homosexuality is wrong or not.

That doesn't have much to do with whether homosexuality is wrong or not.

True, but neither did the whole reproduction and embryo thingy.

True, but neither did the whole reproduction and embryo thingy.

Yeah, I don't know how we got onto that.

Yeah, I don't know how we got onto that.

Discussion of how homosexual couples might eventually be able to produce offspring together, I believe.

Discussion of how homosexual couples might eventually be able to produce offspring together, I believe.

Oh yeah. That conversation's a blur to me. All that I remember is "Chicken Doctors and Scrambled Eggs".

Well, it's a good thing then that this issue is about gaining full, legal, "political", civil rights for gays, as opposed to general "serious social respect", isn't it?


But the only right which homosexuals really lack is the right (I mean right de iure not de facto) to have a civil marriage. It's not like not having a right to vote, which is just a regular political oppression. It's just an effect of this disrespect, which is also a reason for other common acts of intolerance.

At least I see it this way.


Oh, and in answer to your question of "who would elect one of them?" (:rolleyes:) One example: Massachusetts. See Senator Barney Franks.

But it still doesn't change the fact that those signs of tolerance are still uncommon.

But the only right which homosexuals really lack is the right (I mean right de iure not de facto) to have a civil marriage.

Which, considering the huge amount of tax, financial and legal benefits a civil marriage brings with it, is quite significant.

But the only right which homosexuals really lack is the right (I mean right de iure not de facto) to have a civil marriage.

To beat a dead horse a little bit more, marriage is a suite of various rights and benefits all moulded into one convenient legal contract. To attain all the right and benefits outside of marriage would require literally dozens of legal documents. To act like it is a solitary right that is being withheld is to purposely misunderstand the true nature of marriage, at least in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

But the only right which homosexuals really lack is the right (I mean right de iure not de facto) to have a civil marriage.
Depending on where you live, homosexuals also lack the rights:

-to not get fired for being gay
-to not be evicted for being gay
-to receive the same medical care a straight person would be able to receive
-to not be denied service in a store/restaurant
-to adopt children
-to foster children

And there's more.

To beat a dead horse a little bit more, marriage is a suite of various rights and benefits all moulded into one convenient legal contract. To attain all the right and benefits outside of marriage would require literally dozens of legal documents.

If it were even possible, which it isn't. Some protections are specifically enshrined in marriage law, without being attainable through other means.

But the only right which homosexuals really lack is the right (I mean right de iure not de facto) to have a civil marriage. It's not like not having a right to vote, which is just a regular political oppression. It's just an effect of this disrespect, which is also a reason for other common acts of intolerance.

At least I see it this way.



But it still doesn't change the fact that those signs of tolerance are still uncommon.

You know, you really are getting sadder by the day. As one after another of your failed arguments is taken down, you keep grasping at thinner and thinner straws to keep claiming that gays should not be fighting for their rights.

Now you are reduced to arguing that the right to marry isn't all that much of a right anyway, not compared to other rights. So...what? They should just sit down and shut up because it's not worth the effort? Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you as, in Loving v Virginia, the justices ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. The UN, by the way, agrees with SCOTUS, not you, on that one, as do most other legal authorities. So your attempt to tell the gays to just be quiet because they're fighting over a triviality fails, just like all your other arguments.

And your attempt to claim that since discrimination is still rampant gays should avoid fighting against it somehow manages to be both nonsensical and insulting at the same time. You asked who would vote for a gay person. I answered you: The voters of Massachusetts, for one example. You were clearly trying to suggest that gays are so hated that no one would ever trust them with public office. You were clearly wrong. At least you are consistent in that. But it is obvious that gays are not as far out on the edge of American society as you would wish them to be, and they are getting deeper and deeper into the accepted mainstream every day.

....

It's also important, as a side note, to remember the mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy factories in your cells, and they have their own DNA. When we talk about the sperm and egg each contributing half of your DNA, what that really refers to is NUCLEAR DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is another story. While both egg and sperm cells have mitochondria, the mitochondria from the sperm cell don't end up contributing genetically to the zygote and the daughter cells down the line. So all your mitochondrial DNA is from your mother's cells.

That's why they call her the mitochondrial eve, I imagine, because they used that DNA to do the study?

That's why they call her the mitochondrial eve, I imagine, because they used that DNA to do the study?
Yep!

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Mitochondrial Eve is now found in all of us, every living human. She is believed to have lived about 8,000 generations ago.

Yep!

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Mitochondrial Eve is now found in all of us, every living human. She is believed to have lived about 8,000 generations ago.

Moreso, her name was Shaniqua, and she worked as a librarian in North Africa. She enjoyed handcrafts and white water rafting, and had a thing for "bad boys".

She carried a gene that made her disproportionately attracted to men. When this gene manifested in her daughters, they became complete hornkittens. When the gene manifested in combination with other genese in certain of her sons, they also become very attracted to men.

Thus, she is also mother of all gay dudes in addition to being a common ancestor to all humans.

Ethically and morally, I can't really say wether homosexuality is wrong or not. But based on my limited knowledge of science it would seem that homosexuality is a genetic defect.

EDIT:due to post that happened while I was typing I may in fact stand corrected.

But based on my limited knowledge of science it would seem that homosexuality is a genetic defect.
I...it...this...

I give up.

I...it...this...

I give up.

Go have a drink. You deserve it.

Hey I said I could be wrong. Plus I don't really care about the moral issue of homosexuality. Furthermore if these people want to get married they should form their own religion and claim protection under the first amendment.

I believe I will have a drink as well.

Hey I said I could be wrong. Plus I don't really care about the moral issue of homosexuality. Furthermore if these people want to get married they should form their own religion and claim protection under the first amendment.

Because its so easy to get recognized as a religion by the state:rolleyes:

I...it...this...

I give up.

Based on my limited knowledge of surrender heuristics, you are not allowed to give up. I could be wrong, though.

Hey I said I could be wrong. Plus I don't really care about the moral issue of homosexuality. Furthermore if these people want to get married they should form their own religion and claim protection under the first amendment.

It might be a dangerous precedent to predicate civil rights solely on religious expression.

Might be other vectors that would allow the gay folks to be regarded as having the same rights without needing special tombstones at Arlington.

No I didn't. I said show me one example of gay people [plural] talking about straights the way TB did about gays.

Not one person doing it. But even just one example of "them" doing it, the way TB originally claimed. He used the plural, claiming that gay people are as insulting towards straights as he was being towards gays (and implying that they do it regularly).

Because in all seriousness, if TB is going to claim Fass as a defense for his obnoxious remarks, he won't have a leg to stand on.

OK, I misinterpretted your 'request'

Based on my limited knowledge of surrender heuristics, you are not allowed to give up. I could be wrong, though.

Wow your real nice. If I don't make the claim of being possibly wrong someone will no doubt call me an idiot or make some other claim. Plus the religion thing was just an idea that I was throwing out there.

No I didn't. I said show me one example of gay people [plural] talking about straights the way TB did about gays.

Not one person doing it. But even just one example of "them" doing it, the way TB originally claimed. He used the plural, claiming that gay people are as insulting towards straights as he was being towards gays (and implying that they do it regularly).

Because in all seriousness, if TB is going to claim Fass as a defense for his obnoxious remarks, he won't have a leg to stand on.

Ahem, there is one gay who was very verbally abusive to straights.

Two years ago, I was in an alleyway debating the old axiom "a mouth is a mouth" with a transvestite prostitute. Price considerations were weighed against skill, and the fulcrum was tilting to culmination when three self described "Fag Bashers" entered the alley way with various crude weapons.

We were about to be beaten to death (the tranny wanted to put up a fight but I couldn't stop sobbing and begging for mercy) when Tim Gunn decended from above on some kind of motorized rappeling rig that he must've gotten from sharper image or something.

Anyway, he said "Gentlemen, this violence will not quiet the anger in your hearts, and its hardly good for our already strained tourist industry. I'm going to have to ask you to kindly retire for the evening."

And the Fag Bashers told him they were going to wad his matching chartreuse tie into a big knotted wad and shove it up his ass.

So Tim Gunn said, "Gentlemen...I'll treat us all to dinner at a great tapas place up the road if you'll simply be dissuaded from violence. I'm sure we can arrive at some agreement yes?"

So they rushed him with lead pipes and bicycle chains and he kicked seven shades of shit out of all three of them with what looked like a combination of Aikido, Kyokushin, and backhanded slaps to the face.

Then, Tim Gunn said "Its forlorn, but I hope you've learned something."

Notice, Muravyets, that the third time, Tim Gunn did NOT refer to them as "gentlemen".

Quite rude.

Wow your real nice. If I don't make the claim of being possibly wrong someone will no doubt call me an idiot or make some other claim. Plus the religion thing was just an idea that I was throwing out there.

There are many, many (perhaps even a majoritive amount) of assertions here where it is not explicitly qualified that the statement "could be wrong", and the person is not thus judged as an idiot.

I understood it was an idea; it was, for the reasons described, not a particularly apt one.

Hey I said I could be wrong. Plus I don't really care about the moral issue of homosexuality. Furthermore if these people want to get married they should form their own religion and claim protection under the first amendment.

I...but...this...

I give up.

DUDE!!! They don't need a religion to get married!!! *jumps out a low window*

Ok now that the religion issue is cleaned up can somebody who knows a good deal about genetics or psychology tell me where homosexuality comes from?

Ahem, there is one gay who was very verbally abusive to straights.

Two years ago, I was in an alleyway debating the old axiom "a mouth is a mouth" with a transvestite prostitute. Price considerations were weighed against skill, and the fulcrum was tilting to culmination when three self described "Fag Bashers" entered the alley way with various crude weapons.

We were about to be beaten to death (the tranny wanted to put up a fight but I couldn't stop sobbing and begging for mercy) when Tim Gunn decended from above on some kind of motorized rappeling rig that he must've gotten from sharper image or something.

Anyway, he said "Gentlemen, this violence will not quiet the anger in your hearts, and its hardly good for our already strained tourist industry. I'm going to have to ask you to kindly retire for the evening."

And the Fag Bashers told him they were going to wad his matching chartreuse tie into a big knotted wad and shove it up his ass.

So Tim Gunn said, "Gentlemen...I'll treat us all to dinner at a great tapas place up the road if you'll simply be dissuaded from violence. I'm sure we can arrive at some agreement yes?"

So they rushed him with lead pipes and bicycle chains and he kicked seven shades of shit out of all three of them with what looked like a combination of Aikido, Kyokushin, and backhanded slaps to the face.

Then, Tim Gunn said "Its forlorn, but I hope you've learned something."

Notice, Muravyets, that the third time, Tim Gunn did NOT refer to them as "gentlemen".

Quite rude.
Well, I stand corrected then. But of course, being corrected by Tim Gunn is what life's all about. ;)

Ok now that the religion issue is cleaned up can somebody who knows a good deal about genetics or psychology tell me where homosexuality comes from?

You may find many possible answers still burning in the crucible of ongoing research and debate.

I most favor my Shaniqua explanation, but its not well represented in the peer reviewed literature.

Ok now that the religion issue is cleaned up can somebody who knows a good deal about genetics or psychology tell me where homosexuality comes from?
Meeting people who are so wrong about so many things that one could not possibly bring oneself to fuck them. Eventually, one's options start to narrow.

I might start crying.

Well, I stand corrected then. But of course, being corrected by Tim Gunn is what life's all about. ;)

Well, there's my next tattoo.

Meeting people who are so wrong about so many things that one could not possibly bring oneself to fuck them. Eventually, one's options start to narrow.

I will agree with you, in all counts Mura-chan! Just don't throw yourself from the window!!:eek:

Meeting people who are so wrong about so many things that one could not possibly bring oneself to fuck them. Eventually, one's options start to narrow.

Jaysis, Mur, you're so harsh sometimes.

You can't just do the old hatefuck, or keep their tongue busy, or use them up like a tube of calk and then throw their ass in the trash when there's not enough left to fill your cleft up?

You may find many possible answers still burning in the crucible of ongoing research and debate.

I most favor my Shaniqua explanation, but its not well represented in the peer reviewed literature.

other than the stuff in the first part of the explanation about the whole librarian most of it actually seemed to make sense.

I might start crying.

Don't cry, it makes baby Jesus gay...

other than the stuff in the first part of the explanation about the whole librarian most of it actually seemed to make sense.

Seriously, there's a fairly sizable debate, but from what I understand, homosexuality occurs in various species, is able to persist in the gene pool, and does not, in fact, make baby jesus cry.

Why is this even an issue

Why is this even an issue

A civil rights issue? Because gays are denied certain rights in certain places.

I will agree with you, in all counts Mura-chan! Just don't throw yourself from the window!!:eek:

It's a very low window, with bushes under it. I had it made for the purpose. :D

It's a very low window, with bushes under it. I had it made for the purpose. :D

Id imagine it gets used a lot due to NSG.

Id imagine it gets used a lot due to NSG.
I'm thinking of replacing the bushes with a trampoline to facilitate bouncing back in, since I go through it so frequently.

You know, you really are getting sadder by the day. As one after another of your failed arguments is taken down, you keep grasping at thinner and thinner straws to keep claiming that gays should not be fighting for their rights.


None of my arguments failed because they weren't supposed to win. I take this "improving my views" thing seriously, you know.


Now you are reduced to arguing that the right to marry isn't all that much of a right anyway, not compared to other rights.


No, I just said that the right to vote by itself is more important than right to marry.

And it's more important than ANY MORAL/SOCIAL/FINANCIAL RIGHT. You know why? Because thanks to voting rights, the society (with its minorities, like homosexuals) CAN EVEN THINK about forming laws by itself and not getting shot while trying.


Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you as, in Loving v Virginia, the justices ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right.
The UN, by the way, agrees with SCOTUS, not you, on that one, as do most other legal authorities.


Yes, its one of those laws. Which doesn't make it automatically the best or the most important of them.


So your attempt to tell the gays to just be quiet because they're fighting over a triviality fails, just like all your other arguments.


No, they should fight. What I am saying is that In My Opinion this fight should be more well-considered and possibly more benevolent.


And your attempt to claim that since discrimination is still rampant gays should avoid fighting against it somehow manages to be both nonsensical and insulting at the same time. You asked who would vote for a gay person. I answered you: The voters of Massachusetts, for one example.


Basically, by using this "who would vote" argument I tried to picture, that the society in general is still intolerant, even if there are places where there are more enlightened people.


You were clearly trying to suggest that gays are so hated that no one would ever trust them with public office. You were clearly wrong. At least you are consistent in that. But it is obvious that gays are not as far out on the edge of American society as you would wish them to be, and they are getting deeper and deeper into the accepted mainstream every day.

So if the Gays aren't hatred and are totally tolerated, what do they fight for? I thought this is all about it - the society THOUGHTLESSLY does not accept one group (as one of my previous adversaries said. I didn't make this up at least by myself) - there has to be something done about it.

You see, sometimes I think that some of you just can't accept or understand that I am all-tolerant to Homosexuals, or at least as tolerant as I am to all other groups of society.

It's a very low window, with bushes under it. I had it made for the purpose. :D

Ah, in that case...:tongue:

I'm thinking of replacing the bushes with a trampoline to facilitate bouncing back in, since I go through it so frequently.

This created a really funny image in my head.

This created a really funny image in my head.

Same here. Infact I kinda want to do this... To bad my comp is on the second floor.

None of my arguments failed because they weren't supposed to win. I take this "improving my views" thing seriously, you know.
Well, at least you have clarified that you were not trying to be right about any of this. Now, rather than deal with your point by point redundancies (because I'm still picking myself out of the bushes from the last time I jumped out the window because of the nonsense in this thread), I will just wait for you to realize that:

(A) If all of this is JUST YOUR OPINION (using your caps and bold), then none of it needs to matter to anyone but you unless you are a supreme court justice. Are you a supreme court justice, either state or federal?

(B) At this point, your relative tolerance or lack thereof is irrelevant compared to the insulting, ignorant, and factually incorrect content of your posts which echo many arguments of the most intolerant gay-haters. So your claims that you are not one of them kind of don't mean much in that context.

(C) Further, your claims that you are just trying to improve your views don't stand up well as I watch your posts get progressively lamer.

So, feel free to start the improving process at any time.

Ok now that the religion issue is cleaned up can somebody who knows a good deal about genetics or psychology tell me where homosexuality comes from?

No.

I'm not even being snarky (ok maybe a little) because the fact is that nobody can tell you "where homosexuality comes from." Human sexuality is only partially understood right now, so nobody has all the answers.

No, seriously, I really might start weeping.

No, seriously, I really might start weeping.

http://images.main.uab.edu/imedpub/Kleenex.jpg

Well, at least you have clarified that you were not trying to be right about any of this. Now, rather than deal with your point by point redundancies (because I'm still picking myself out of the bushes from the last time I jumped out the window because of the nonsense in this thread), I will just wait for you to realize that:

(A) If all of this is JUST YOUR OPINION (using your caps and bold), then none of it needs to matter to anyone but you unless you are a supreme court justice. Are you a supreme court justice, either state or federal?

(B) At this point, your relative tolerance or lack thereof is irrelevant compared to the insulting, ignorant, and factually incorrect content of your posts which echo many arguments of the most intolerant gay-haters. So your claims that you are not one of them kind of don't mean much in that context.

(C) Further, your claims that you are just trying to improve your views don't stand up well as I watch your posts get progressively lamer.

So, feel free to start the improving process at any time.

And rought as Mur is here, she's kinda right.

You can't say you're trying to "Make it work", then not do anything to improve your stuff.

Yes, you have a point. The problem comes when we allow something that was pretty much a sin to be considered acceptable.


'Allow'? In what way does YOU morality have any cause to impinge on MY rights?

See the conflict?

If YOU think it's a sin, if YOU think god forbids it... don't do it.

But a religious majority imposing those restrictions on EVERYONE, religious or otherwise, Christian or otherwise - is an abuse of the power of the majority.


Now of course legally(US) it might be the case. In case of the Bible it is pretty clear it was to be discouraged.


It's also pretty clear that it's discouraged to work on a Saturday, to eat shellfish, for a woman to talk in church, and to mix fabrics. But it's okay to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, to cut off your genitals, and to keep slaves.

You have to ask yourself how much these encouragements and allowances SHOULD be allowed to influence a society that isn't wholy comprised of 'believers'.


The same would also go for fornication, adultery, living in sin, incest, bestiality, and so on.


Read through your bible and find where it mentions the sins of gay marriage.

Then look through and find where it mentions the sins of gay lust.

Then look through and find where it mentions the sins of straight lust.

Compare those two numbers.


The big deal for the bible (especially the New Testament) is sex outside of the sanctity of marriage. Gay or straight.

The 'christian' solution in the case of straight couples - is to encourage them to get married - which makes the Christian opposition to gay marriage extremely hypocritical.


None of this of course has stopped place like Las Vegas and others from becoming Cities of Sin. Have you seen the recent commercials even Angels go there? So this is where I get conflicted. Is it morally correct is a tough one. Is this sin worse than any else. No of course not. To validate it though may be a problem.


Morally correct is irrelevent.

Your morals have no right to be imposed on me.


If you think that's unreasonable - I advise you to look at the increase in Islam in America, and consider that America may well be a majority Islamic state some time this century - and then ask yourself if YOU want to have that law deciding YOUR choices.


You might say the same about Rembrandt, Picasso, Einstein or Mozart. All were exceptional human beings although all were human.


Which is not the same. No one is arguing that Picasso was MORE than human. A really good hotdog is still a hotdog.


It is also up to each individual to search for the divine and to decide for themselves. Does this sound like the work of Satan. Knowing what we know about him and his crew?


Everything you know about Satan comes from the same source. You believe Satan is evil because you trust a book that could have been WRITTEN by the very Satan you're accusing of being a liar.

It's illogical.


If it does then maybe you have a point. Seriously I don't hear anything Evil or Selfish in these words. They seem fairly Altruistic to me. Love your neighbor and all that.


You clearly haven't actually read your Bible.

Nah man, that's impossible. You might not know how the human anatomy works. But, 2 men can't "make" a baby. Nor can 2 woman.

Ignoring the fact that you're talking old tech... and ignoring the fact that - theoretically - just one woman can 'make a baby'... 2 men AND 2 women can make babies. No matter their orientation.

What I've never understood is WHY the argument is supposed to be accepted that you MUST have children with your preferred gender. We don't insist that a husband MUST have a child with his sterile wife, or vice versa.

Indeed, when we find a couple that can't have children, there's usually pressure to offer all kinds of assistance. And if they still can't, there's pressure to adopt.

Unless you're gay.