Homosexuality/Homophobia?

[Surtr]

So, I don't want this to get into some sorta' hate-fest but, just outa' curiousity, how do you feel about Homosexuals, Transgender people, Bi's and the whole basically non-straight gang?

If any mods see this as getting out of hand please take the liberty to close it.

[monkeysonmars.]

I don't even see the issue unless you're religious. i live with a gay guy, he's a twat but that's nothing to do with the penis he takes up the bum.

or i don't think so anyway...

(dun dun dun)

[Der Übermensch]

I don't care.
If guys want to take it up the bum, they are welcome to. Doesn't hurt me any.

[Avalanche.]

I dont really care about what they do in their private life, but why do so many in popular culture act like your flamboyant stereotypical gays.

[Smokey D]

Are you serious? Why do gay people in popular culture, the manufacturer of stereotypes, act like stereotypes?

[Akira]

Flamboyant gays are annoying as hell, but I don't have any problems with normal guys who happen to like other guys.

[Tyr]

For me, they are just like any other person.

[Mr. Ron]

fine with it.

[Avalanche.]

Are you serious? Why do gay people in popular culture, the manufacturer of stereotypes, act like stereotypes?

Wait..All black people don't act like Lil' Jon?

[spitfirejunky]

What is the difference between the first and third option?

[TheDarkHorse]

other: I could care less


Are you serious? Why do gay people in popular culture, the manufacturer of stereotypes, act like stereotypes?
:lol:

[The Stig]

Don't ask.

Don't tell.

Don't care really.

Some of the super flamboyant people irritate me, but that's because a lot of them are going out of their way to make a scene.

As long as it doesn't get to the point of general obnoxiousness I really don't care about it.

[cometuesday]

I don't really understand why it has to be an issue, personally. Although, like people have already said, watching any guy on like the E channel or like America's top model or the like drives me ****ing nuts... but if they were straight, or even if they were a woman, and they acted way over the top like that I'd be just as irritated too so...

I actually had a friend a while back that just kind of decided he was bisexual one day and yeah it was weird but not because "oh now you like penis?" but more like oh I don't know how to react because I thought I knew you well but aparently not. Past that initial shock it wasn't really a big deal though.

[J Rad]

I don't care if someone is gay as long as it doesn't define them as a person. I found out recently that one of my best friends from high school was gay. I was surprised, but I didn't stop being his friend because of it simply because he never made any kind of big deal out of it. I didn't know, he didn't tell me, and that was cool. Then when I found out and it never came up again, that was cool too. It's his business.

I do have a problem though with gay pride marches/demonstrations, I have a problem the whole, "I'm gay and I'm proud" mentality that inspires rampant and unnecessary flamboyancy, and I have a problem with the idea that the best way to achieve tolerance is to present the situation in a consistently abrasive manner to people that are happier not having it thrown in their face like it needs to be recognized that Jane Doe is a lesbian and if everyone doesn't know then somehow it's not official or accepted.

[Iskandar]

I do have a problem though with gay pride marches/demonstrationswhy

[J Rad]

Well to elaborate, I feel it's unnecessary. It doesn't make tolerance more achievable, it doesn't make legislative victory anymore foreseeable, and it doesn't help the gay community. Gay pride demonstrations are constant targets of attack and outrage and holding more demonstrations that are more bold and aggressive is not going to lessen the aggression being returned, it will only heighten it until demonstrators are not just being punched in the face but instead are being shot at or beaten to death.

Flamboyancy does not achieve tolerance is what I'm getting at.

[Smokey D]

Woah. I don't think gay pride demonstrations automatically equate to screaming queen flamboyancy. I can appreciate the distaste for allowing sexuality to be the sole or even primary defining quality of a gay person, but I think this as at least the much of a culture obsessed with gender identity as it is of the individual.

[J Rad]

Woah. I don't think gay pride demonstrations automatically equate to screaming queen flamboyancy. I can appreciate the distaste for allowing sexuality to be the sole or even primary defining quality of a gay person, but I think this as at least the much of a culture obsessed with gender identity as it is of the individual.

I agree it's a cultural problem as well, but I'm just trying to express that with all things considered, I would prefer to see these people not be put into dangerous situations by holding large demonstrations. I think flying more under the radar would, in the long run, prove to be much more effective in reaching a level of tolerance that is acceptable to all. I think they would do better to voice their opinions in the court room with stronger force and presence than make themselves vulnerable by protesting in the streets. I don't want to see anyone get hurt over the acquisition of a few additional rights.

[Iskandar]

What the hell? Gay pride parades are dangerous?

Maybe in America.

[J Rad]

Well since I live in America the danger associated with gay pride demonstrations is abundantly relevant.

[JerrySanders]

I've always been attracted to some guys but I never actually did anything with any guys like kiss or up the butt. I like women better.

[Smokey D]

I agree it's a cultural problem as well, but I'm just trying to express that with all things considered, I would prefer to see these people not be put into dangerous situations by holding large demonstrations. I think flying more under the radar would, in the long run, prove to be much more effective in reaching a level of tolerance that is acceptable to all. I think they would do better to voice their opinions in the court room with stronger force and presence than make themselves vulnerable by protesting in the streets. I don't want to see anyone get hurt over the acquisition of a few additional rights.

Well, I'm very much opposed to the idea that just because it's dangerous people should have their rights to assembly abridged. I'm also opposed to the idea that Mardi Gras is the representative culture of all, or even the majority of, gay people. In fact, I think that's ludicrous. Also, gay pride parades aren't about attaining extra rights. They're about doing what you want because of who they are. I see no difference between a St Patrick's Day Irish parade and a gay rights parade.

[J Rad]

Well that's just where we differ.

[Smokey D]

Actually, I lie. I do see a difference. But it's completely irrelevant to whether they should or should be able to continue to celebrate gay pride days. But more importantly, we need to stop talking like gay pride parades are the sum of homosexual identity and culture.

[Iskandar]

Well since I live in America the danger associated with gay pride demonstrations is abundantly relevant.I find that simultaneously hilarious and revolting.

[J Rad]

Actually, I lie. I do see a difference. But it's completely relevant to whether they should or should be able to continue to celebrate gay pride days. But more importantly, we need to stop talking like gay pride parades are the sum of homosexual identity and culture.

Well they aren't the sum of their identity and culture, but they are what people most associate with gay rights as a result of those demonstrations receiving the most media attention. If a stingy, pissy old conservative is watching the news every day and the only information they're getting about homosexuals is coverage on the latest demonstration/march/picket and they're seeing things like this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060625/450pride_pride.jpg

They're not going to be very anxious to accept this alternative lifestyle.

I find that simultaneously hilarious and revolting.

Ok.

[Smokey D]

Well they aren't the sum of their identity and culture, but they are what people most associate with gay rights as a result of those demonstrations receiving the most media attention.

Possibly, but efforts to crack down on this sort of behavior only inspire people to adopt it.

If a stingy, pissy old conservative is watching the news every day and the only information they're getting about homosexuals is coverage on the latest demonstration/march/picket and they're seeing things like this:'

Since when is what a pissy conservative's opinion relevant, though. We need a political system that maximises individual rights, not one that obeys the whims of a loud minority.

And what's going on in that picture is hardly outrageous. No more than 'Mothers Against Rap' or anything.

[J Rad]

Possibly, but efforts to crack down on this sort of behavior only inspire people to adopt it.

The old, "Tell me not to and I'll do it even more" mentality. I get what you're saying. It seems like there should be an alternative though. I don't know what, but it should be there.

Since when is what a pissy conservative's opinion relevant, though. We need a political system that maximises individual rights, not one that obeys the whims of a loud minority.

Well as of last year, 31.9% of adults claimed Republican affiliation, so while they're not the majority they certainly hold their own weight. But I agree, we should have a more neutral system.

And what's going on in that picture is hardly outrageous. No more than 'Mothers Against Rap' or anything.

It's more of a "see it from the other point of view" thing.

[Cocaine]

My issue with pride parades is that I really dont want to see a bunch of fat, old and naked men, nor do I really want to see a bunch of fat, old and naked lesbians. But that has less to do with homosexuality and more to do with it being completely unappealing to me.

I'm cool with gay, straight, whatever. I just dont think it should define you as a person, which goes for hetero- and bisexuals as well.

[Meatplow]

I was once uncomfortable with it, now it doesn't bother me. Raised in a family of homophobic men, growing up I never tried to understand their life apart from that people with this sexuality are poofs so there is something wrong with them.

There always seems to be a mentality within children to laugh and point fingers at those who are different from the beliefs they take for granted, so many a child was bullied for appearing gay. I am guilty of this myself, and I feel bad about these actions when I was younger because they have long-lasting repercussions in peoples lives. I was constantly harassed in high school when I was a bit older because some people thought I was homosexual, to the point my life had been threatened a number of times. To this day i'm still affected by it.

Anyway I learnt my lesson. One of my best friends in high school came out, and I was astounded by the attitudes as one troublemaking cunt in my year spread the news expecting him to get attacked only to find a lot of people were very accepting. Gay people started popping up everywhere and eventually, the shock went and it was just there nobody cared anymore. Unfortunately there are many who still don't tolerate, i've gone through sexually confused stages in life myself and its very belittling to hear someone in your family that you respect say if they had a gay child they'd drown it in the river.

If they conduct themselves like human beings they deserved to be treated like one, flamboyant or whatever.

[Smokey D]

The old, "Tell me not to and I'll do it even more" mentality. I get what you're saying. It seems like there should be an alternative though. I don't know what, but it should be there.


There is an alternative, and I suspect it's what the majority of gays adhere to. But that doesn't mean people who attend gay pride parades shouldn't.


It's more of a "see it from the other point of view" thing.

If conservatives have a problem with the very low key protesting going on in that pic, they're going to take issue with homosexuality in itself, not simply because it's threatening their moral values or something else retarded.

[J Rad]

Yeah I suppose.

Since we mostly agree and I don't really have anything to argue, I'm going to drop out of this thread so I can get ready for bed.

Nice discussion, peace.

[cometuesday]

That kind of reminds me of something that happened during my freshman year of college that kind of rubbed me the wrong way...

It was like the beginning of gay pride week or whatever it was, I don't exactly recall I just remember seeing signs up for it before hand and I thought "oh cool, yay for the gays" ya know. So anyway, I walk out of my dorm one day and literally all over the campus they had gone around and someone had written faggot and queer and cunt and all the variations of phrases including those and other words. I mean, everywhere, you couldn't walk down the ****ing sidewalk or go into a building without having it in your face.

And at first I was kind of pissed off because I was thinking, "who the **** would do that because it's not really funny and it just comes off as a cry for attention or an attempt at being really shocking." Odd thing is, I found out later that the gay/lesbian/bi/transgender organization on the campus had been the ones that had gone around in the night and written all that stuff all over the place.

I dunno, it just kind of hit a bad note in me. I mean I understand what they were trying to say and do, like this is what we are so acknowledge us but... at the same time it was still vulgar and completely unnecessary and it didn't really seem right to me regardless of who was actually doing/saying it.

I dunno, discuss.

[Iskandar]

They did it to make a powerful point.

[PerpetualBurn]

If they really want to convince people at these pride marches, they should just hand out lesbian pron.

[planewreck]

A lot of flamboyantly gay people come from oppressive, mostly religious families. I know a few gay people that took a long time coming out and are really flamboyantly gay, and they came from really religious families. When they did finally come out, all those repressed feelings just kind of exploded into another form. It's easier for people to just accept themselves as they are without theatrics if everyone around them, especially those that care most, are ready to accept it as well. They don't feel like they have to justify anything or rally against oppression because they never really had anything to fight against.

[PerpetualBurn]

Having a sibling involved heavily in the theatrical world, I learned a distinction some time ago between being very camp and being gay.

[Danish]

Flamboyant gays are annoying as hell, but I don't have any problems with normal guys who happen to like other guys.

Not nearly as annoying as flamboyant straights!

[The Stig]

Nah they are both pretty bad. Like I said, the thing that irritates me about flamboyant gays is that they go to the level of normal annoyance with anyone who acts obnoxiously.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't see a difference!

[Against Miik!]

Troof.

I am completely against homosexuality. It grosses me out, and I don't want to see it. If I saw two guys kissing right in front of me, I'd knock em out.

That being said, I'm not about to tell others how to live there lives, and I'm no scientist, so I don't know if homosexuality is decided from birth or if its a choice. I don't think anybody knows that, and if they say they do, they are lying. Even if we do figure that out, I don' think it matters.

[PerpetualBurn]

I am completely against homosexuality. It grosses me out, and I don't want to see it. If I saw two guys kissing right in front of me, I'd knock em out.


I had no idea you were such a pathetic piece of trash.

[Against Miik!]

Did you read the second part of my post?

[Danish]

Most people are neither fully homosexual or heterosexual, but somewhere in between. But the way we socially construct sexuality pushes people to pick one or the other. I mean, how many of us would express our bisexual tendencies if we weren't deathly afraid of being labeled "gay", or punched in the face by dude who posted above? I mean, individual people are no different than they were in Ancient Greece, where almost everyone was openly bisexual. But in our society, being "gay" is a torture sentence for a lot of people, especially men.

For men, it has everything to do with the construction of masculinity.

[The Stig]

I've never felt any bisexual tendencies. However, I don't feel the need to go around saying kill the fags like some people do because I'm confident enough in my leanings I don't need to overcompensate.

[Akira]

Did you read the second part of my post?

You're still a pathetic piece of trash.

In fact, the second part of the post is just contradictory, which is maybe even more annoying.

Seeing two guys make out wouldn't really bother me much more than seeing a guy and a girl make out. Either way, get a room.

[Danish]

I've never felt any bisexual tendencies.

:rolleyes: Yea, right.

[The Stig]

Yep. Right.

[Against Miik!]

You're still a pathetic piece of trash.

In fact, the second part of the post is just contradictory, which is maybe even more annoying.

Seeing two guys make out wouldn't really bother me much more than seeing a guy and a girl make out. Either way, get a room.

Well yeah, I don't like seeing that anyways. But still, it grosses me out. I'm sorry. Actually ef that I shouldn't have to apologize. Its not like I'm gonna go around like its the 1960's lynching gays. I just don't like it. But I mean hell, its not like I believe homosexuality has anything to do with the downfall of American morals. I'm even pro gay marriage. Like I said, I can't tell people what do with there lives. But thats not even the point. If you want to be gay and go out and be all over guys in public, fine. But you should be prepared to face consequences. It's just a matter of respect, because homosexuality is a thing a lot of people aren't comfortable with, so why impose them on it? If I had any anti social habits like that, I certainly wouldn't go around flaunting it.

[Hababi]

I had no idea you were such a pathetic piece of trash.

You're still a pathetic piece of trash.


Clearly the bar of discussion in this thread is high.

Most people are neither fully homosexual or heterosexual, but somewhere in between. But the way we socially construct sexuality pushes people to pick one or the other. I mean, how many of us would express our bisexual tendencies if we weren't deathly afraid of being labeled "gay", or punched in the face by dude who posted above? I mean, individual people are no different than they were in Ancient Greece, where almost everyone was openly bisexual. But in our society, being "gay" is a torture sentence for a lot of people, especially men.

For men, it has everything to do with the construction of masculinity.

Blah Kinsey :\


In other news, why oh why is this thread getting so much attention and Smokey's much more interesting thread getting less?

[Against Miik!]

Because that one is confusing. Why talk about sovereignty when we can talk about things that really matter, right?

I'm gonna go post in smokey's

[DBoons Ghost]

I've got no real issues with anyone's sexual preference. Everyone has their own right to do with their body as they please.

[Cocaine]

Well yeah, I don't like seeing that anyways. But still, it grosses me out. I'm sorry. Actually ef that I shouldn't have to apologize. Its not like I'm gonna go around like its the 1960's lynching gays. I just don't like it. But I mean hell, its not like I believe homosexuality has anything to do with the downfall of American morals. I'm even pro gay marriage. Like I said, I can't tell people what do with there lives. But thats not even the point. If you want to be gay and go out and be all over guys in public, fine. But you should be prepared to face consequences. It's just a matter of respect, because homosexuality is a thing a lot of people aren't comfortable with, so why impose them on it? If I had any anti social habits like that, I certainly wouldn't go around flaunting it.
This is still contradictory.

You dont want to tell them how to live their lives, you just don't want them living them how they see fit (which may include PDAs) because some people are uncomfortable with it. Sure it's a matter of respect to not make out with your boyfriend in public, but that holds true if you're a male or a female. The fact you consider homosexuality to be an anti-social tendency is a little disgusting.

Like others (including myself) have said, your sexual orientation shouldn't solely define you. I'm uncomfortable seeing two dudes sucking face in public (and two broads) because I just don't want to see it. It's no different from me not wanting to see two heterosexuals suck face. It's disrespectful; not because of their sexual orientation, but because it just is.

In the same vein, sexual flamboyancy is just as irritating. That being said, it's still not a matter of orientation, at least for me. I'm just as irritated by a flamboyant homosexual who walks around singing Cher as I am with some desperate tool trying to sweet-talk the bartender on any given night. One just happens to be a lot more entertaining.

[Against Miik!]

I wish we could live in a perfect world where it didn't matter, but honestly, two heterosexuals kissing in public is looked at far differently to homos. It's great to sound all PC and everything, but I'm just expressing reality. Even homosexuals recognize this, which is why, in most parts of the country, you don't see PDA's from them a lot.

[ringworm]

I find that simultaneously hilarious and revolting.
dont worry, whens the last time you've heard about a massacre, shooting or something bad at a gay parade?

[gregulus]

I wish we could live in a perfect world where it didn't matter, but honestly, two heterosexuals kissing in public is looked at far differently to homos. It's great to sound all PC and everything, but I'm just expressing reality. Even homosexuals recognize this, which is why, in most parts of the country, you don't see PDA's from them a lot.

Just because society views homosexuality one way doesn't make perpetrating that idea right. A homosexual couple showing one another affection in public is absolutely no different than a heterosexual couple doing it. Just because it is more taboo doesn't mean it's wrong.

dont worry, whens the last time you've heard about a massacre, shooting or something bad at a gay parade?
I did hear someone say that he wished he could take an AK-47 to a gay pride parade and shoot them all. That's pretty ridiculous.

[Against Miik!]

No. Its wrong to go about flaunting things that you know people won't like. Disrespectful, as I said. Its just different than heterosexual people. I'm sorry, but it is. If you think it isn't, you are living in some sort of dream world.

[Akira]

Well yeah, I don't like seeing that anyways. But still, it grosses me out. I'm sorry. Actually ef that I shouldn't have to apologize. Its not like I'm gonna go around like its the 1960's lynching gays. I just don't like it. But I mean hell, its not like I believe homosexuality has anything to do with the downfall of American morals. I'm even pro gay marriage. Like I said, I can't tell people what do with there lives. But thats not even the point. If you want to be gay and go out and be all over guys in public, fine. But you should be prepared to face consequences. It's just a matter of respect, because homosexuality is a thing a lot of people aren't comfortable with, so why impose them on it? If I had any anti social habits like that, I certainly wouldn't go around flaunting it.

If a guy kisses his male partner in public, that is not imposing homosexuality on anyone.
"Anti-social habits?" Give me a break. Had you been alive in the middle of the twentieth century, would you have been one of the people saying blacks should know their place because them trying to do anything made white people uncomfortable? :rolleyes:

[Against Miik!]

Its different and you know it. Blacks don't have a choice about being black. Homos can easily keep it behind closed doors, and they usually do.

[Akira]

Okay, that's fair enough. You're right.

That said, there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. No one should have to hide it just because people think it's a sin and icky. How is society supposed to progress if it just attacks anything it doesn't like, regardless of whether or not the thing really deserves to be attacked?

[spitfirejunky]

If homosexual people aren't allowed to show affection in public, then neither should heterosexuals.

[spitfirejunky]

Its different and you know it. Blacks don't have a choice about being black. Homos can easily keep it behind closed doors, and they usually do.

No you see, it's a question of fairness. If heterosexuals don't have to be closeted, then why should homosexuals? There's no reason to impose varying measures against one sexuality.

[ringworm]

most people only accept it because they have been told to and it fear what thery would be called for openly opposing it

[monkeysonmars.]

lol yeah ringworm you tell people what they think!

[Knifeboy]

most people only accept it because they have been told to and it fear what thery would be called for openly opposing it

or maybe most people accept it because they arent idiots

[Against Miik!]

There is a difference between accepting it and actually being ok with it. I accept it. Most people do. Its not like gays are being murdered all over the country, although they sometimes are. But being o.k. with it, embracing it, thats a whole other story.

edit: btw, lets get two things straight. Mx isn't exactly a good cross section of the country. I try to explain this to people at my university too. Internet users, like college students, are generally more liberal than the rest of the country.

Also, don't assume that I agree with every single thing I say 100%. It's called devils advocate guys. We wouldn't have debate here if it weren't for that in a lot of cases.

In this case, I'm probably somewhere in between what you guys have been saying and what I've been saying.

[guitrguy]

There are just as many people who front hateful in order to compartmentalize. America is not exactly welcome for gays.

[ringworm]

or maybe most people accept it because they arent idiots
you just proved my point :/

but this is how most people debate things, I'm right, you're an idiot, without ever asking questions or going any deeper, you'll go real far this way

has the media done this, the schools, or just prevailing ignorance?

[Light Fantastic]

I don't know if homosexuality is decided from birth or if its a choice. I don't think anybody knows that, and if they say they do, they are lying.k then i am glad you could choose to be attracted to and/or want to have sexual relations with another man if you wanted to

[spitfirejunky]

Whether it's instinctive or not is completely irrelevent.

[Otherside]

No. Its wrong to go about flaunting things that you know people won't like. Disrespectful, as I said. Its just different than heterosexual people. I'm sorry, but it is. If you think it isn't, you are living in some sort of dream world.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that you assume that any PDA between homosexuals has something to do with the fact that there are other people around and they want everyone to see them do it. I know that if I truly loved someone, regardless of gender, and we were doing something romantic in a public situation and I felt like expressing my feelings to them through a kiss, the absolute, very last thing in my mind would be how it might offend other people around me who not only have no idea who I am, but have no real business paying attention to me in the first place.

[Against Miik!]

Yeah it sucks. I'm not even arguing that its right really. I'm just saying, a lot of people would be far more uncomfortable seeing two guys playing grab *** in a public place than a man and a woman doing the same thing. I dunno what part of liberalville you live in, but I'm pretty sure thats the way it is most other places.

Whether it's instinctive or not is completely irrelevent.

Well the point is a lot of people make that argument.

[Otherside]

Bible Belt, North Carolina here, but location doesn't really equate here in my opinion.

[Light Fantastic]

Whether it's instinctive or not is completely irrelevent.not really, having a problem with people for choices is fairer game than those things they dont choose

like you can have a problem with someone following judaism, but not for being ethnically jewish, or it is more accepted that way


Also, don't assume that I agree with every single thing I say 100%. It's called devils advocate guys. We wouldn't have debate here if it weren't for that in a lot of cases.um, sounds more like you are trying to disassociate yourself with what you said earlier

because devils advocate is brining up appropriate counter positions that you can see significant point in and not about saying you'd knock out two guys for kissing.. ignoring the fact you are assuming you could take two gay guys because they would of course be so feminine and you feel the need to assert your male dominance over such persons in the first place

[monkeysonmars.]

there was a pretty funny story in the Times today about a female bouncer who worked at a gay club and received compensation for sexual harassment. she claimed the staff there called her offensive terms such as 'breeder'. :lol:

[Light Fantastic]

miik are you going to tell me whether you can choose to be attracted to guys or not

because if you can, then you risk being termed bisexual (of which im sure you are greatly afraid)

and if you cant, then you do know that its not a choice

[spitfirejunky]

not really, having a problem with people for choices is fairer game than those things they dont choose

like you can have a problem with someone following judaism, but not for being ethnically jewish, or it is more accepted that way

An action is no less justified when it's instinctive than when it's not instinctive.

However, the way we deal with these actions should consider these circumstances.

[Akira]

I have a gay friend, and he tends to insult people by calling them gay, lol.

[Against Miik!]

miik are you going to tell me whether you can choose to be attracted to guys or not

because if you can, then you risk being termed bisexual (of which im sure you are greatly afraid)

and if you cant, then you do know that its not a choice

wtf are you talking about. I could very well choose to be attracted to guys. I choose not to be.

[Babble]

tons of straights are allowed to be outwardly rugged i dunno why we should have a problem with gays being outwardly flamboyant

[Against Miik!]

Outwardly flamboyant people bother me period. Straight or gay.

[gregulus]

No. Its wrong to go about flaunting things that you know people won't like. Disrespectful, as I said. Its just different than heterosexual people. I'm sorry, but it is. If you think it isn't, you are living in some sort of dream world.

But it's completely irrational to be uncomfortable around it. Any sort of uncomfort is based solely on the fact that it is still somewhat taboo to be an openly gay couple (unfortunately). Using your logic, it would have been wrong for women to petition for the right to vote, because that made A LOT of people very uncomfortable.

[Babble]

Outwardly flamboyant people bother me period. Straight or gay.

howabout acting outwardly rugged


ex: sean connery

[Light Fantastic]

An action is no less justified when it's instinctive than when it's not instinctive.

However, the way we deal with these actions should consider these circumstances.its not about it being justified, nobody needs justification to make those choices for themselves its just a point thats key to antis in the homosexuality 'debate' because if it is a choice then it makes it more attackable as wrong, unnatural, sin, or whatever their reasoning is

wtf are you talking about. I could very well choose to be attracted to guys

then sorry but you are bisexual

[Against Miik!]

well that makes sense. I thought, as a male, choosing to be attracted to just females and not males was the exact opposite of being bisexual.

greg: Thats a very clever tool there, taking one thing and calling it another.

I think there is a bit of a difference between the right to vote and the right to let everybody else know how gay you are.

babble: no thats awesome

[Babble]

what does it matter

we're allowed to let people know how straight we are

[Light Fantastic]

well that makes sense. I thought, as a male, choosing to be attracted to just females and not males was the exact opposite of being bisexual. no, being able to flick a switch and turn on your attraction to males is what makes you bisexual

and heterosexual is not an exact opposite of bisexual anyway

[Against Miik!]

yeah but if you don't flick that switch then you aren't bisexual. Otherwise we would all be bisexual. So if you want to argue that, then have fun.

hmmm. clearly I am not going to win this one. Apparently 5 other people agree with me, according to the poll though, so thats not bad.

Lets just keep one thing in mind. How do you guys feel about being intolerant towards intolerance?

[spitfirejunky]

its not about it being justified, nobody needs justification to make those choices for themselves its just a point thats key to antis in the homosexuality 'debate' because if it is a choice then it makes it more attackable as wrong, unnatural, sin, or whatever their reasoning is

Justification in law. It's all that matters here.

Murder is wrong whether it's instinctive or not instinctive.
Rape is wrong whether it's instinctive or not instinctive.
Etc.

[gregulus]

well that makes sense. I thought, as a male, choosing to be attracted to just females and not males was the exact opposite of being bisexual.

greg: Thats a very clever tool there, taking one thing and calling it another.

I think there is a bit of a difference between the right to vote and the right to let everybody else know how gay you are.

babble: no thats awesome
If by "the right to let everybody else know how gay you are" you mean "the right to act the exact same way as heterosexual couples do without any negative implications attached to such an action," then there is absolutely no difference at all. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation regardless of what said discrimination entails is wrong.

[Babble]

yeah but if you don't flick that switch then you aren't bisexual. Otherwise we would all be bisexual. So if you want to argue that, then have fun.

hmmm. clearly I am not going to win this one. Apparently 5 other people agree with me, according to the poll though, so thats not bad.

Lets just keep one thing in mind. How do you guys feel about being intolerant towards intolerance?

im intolerant to violence and certain biases in law, business, most social occasions

intolerance is a large thing that cant be attacked as a whole

[Against Miik!]

O.k. lets put it this way. I'm comparing the two, I'm just using this as an example. What if somebody was a chronic masturbater. Should they be allowed to just whip it out in public and just go at it?

[Light Fantastic]

yeah but if you don't flick that switch then you aren't bisexual. Otherwise we would all be bisexual. So if you want to argue that, then have fun.


no, but the thing is the switch doesnt even exist.. because you are lying for the sake of not being wrong

if there was you would also be able to turn off your attraction to females, yet i bet you would still be sexually aroused by certain activities no matter how hard you tried not to be because sexual attractions are not things you turn on and off.. if you can be attracted to men sexually as far as to have relations with them then yes you are bisexual

[Against Miik!]

So you are stating, as a fact, that homosexuality is determined at birth? If so, we should probably alert the US Congress

[Light Fantastic]

Justification in law. It's all that matters here.

Murder is wrong whether it's instinctive or not instinctive.
Rape is wrong whether it's instinctive or not instinctive.
Etc.

well why are they wrong

law doesnt define morality, or as you would say right and wrong

[Babble]

what a shallow take on sexuality

if someone whips their dick out and public they should be asked to go elsewhere despite orientation

what does this have to do with gayness

[Light Fantastic]

So you are stating, as a fact, that homosexuality is determined at birth? If so, we should probably alert the US Congress

no, i only know that it isnt choice through not being able to make that choice

i made no claim about genetics or otherwise

[Against Miik!]

That doesn't make any sense.

well why are they wrong

law doesnt define morality, or as you would say right and wrong

Thats the point I was going to get it. If somebody felt the need to masturbate in public, it would surely bother a lot of people, but wouldn't really do any harm to them. Yet we have a law against it. But you say law can't define morality. So that law is not just. So using your logic, we should be allowed to masturbate in public, the same way gays should be able to show there o so lovely affection for eachother.

now i gets it

[Akira]

Did you just compare public masturbation to gay PDA?

[Otherside]

public indecency =/= public displays of affection

[Against Miik!]

Who's to say what is indecent and what is affection? That certainly doesn't seem like something that can be proven by fact. I'm sure there are a lot of people who see gay PDA as indecent. So are we saying that right and wrong is determined by public perception? Yes. That is what you are saying, thus contradicting yourself.

[Reaganista]

public masturbation should be legal as long as you dont cum on somebody who doesn't want you to

[spitfirejunky]

well why are they wrong

law doesnt define morality, or as you would say right and wrong

I'm not using some metaphysics version of the words right and wrong. If you really need a definition for those words, consider "wrong" to be that which can be demonstrated to be harmful to society. Although this definition would lend itself to my argument.

So, do we evaluate the "rightness" of an action based on whether there was some innate tendency to commit said action?

My answer is no.

[Ganondorf]

It is kinda wierd but I accept and respect it, so the first option.

[Light Fantastic]

Thats the point I was going to get it. If somebody felt the need to masturbate in public, it would surely bother a lot of people, but wouldn't really do any harm to them. Yet we have a law against it. But you say law can't define morality. So that law is not just. So using your logic, we should be allowed to masturbate in public, the same way gays should be able to show there o so lovely affection for eachother.

now i gets it

well personally i dont really care about people masturbating in public though so you are using some other guys viewpoint to argue against me

[Against Miik!]

No, not you specifically.

[Otherside]

Who's to say what is indecent and what is affection? That certainly doesn't seem like something that can be proven by fact. I'm sure there are a lot of people who see gay PDA as indecent. So are we saying that right and wrong is determined by public perception? Yes. That is what you are saying, thus contradicting yourself.

Indecent relates to showing of the male or female genitalia


lips are not genitalia

[Against Miik!]

Says who? I could find genitalia to be a very beautiful thing, for example.

[Akira]

But no one is allowed to masturbate in public. If only gays couldn't then it would be an issue.

[Against Miik!]

Not the point. Point is when it comes to issues of sexuality and morality, there is no right and wrong, only public perception.

And with that, I must say, I am done.

[Light Fantastic]

it is the point because you are taking the same act and taking differing opinions of it depending on the people doing it, which is illogical

[Babble]

public masturbation is a health concern.

[Akira]

Gay people all have AIDS so they are a health concern too.

True fact.

[Otherside]

Gay people all have AIDS

this is true

[Babble]

all people have AIDS

its more like this

[Akira]

its more like this

No, just fags.

[Otherside]

AIDS is not a choice its something your born with

[Akira]

Only in Africa.

[Hababi]

AIDS...its something your born with

Unfortunately sometimes it is :\

PS this thread sucks, someone close it.

[Nadinus]

Who's to say what is indecent and what is affection? That certainly doesn't seem like something that can be proven by fact. I'm sure there are a lot of people who see gay PDA as indecent. So are we saying that right and wrong is determined by public perception? Yes. That is what you are saying, thus contradicting yourself.

Well using that argument you could justify just about anything and just say "who are we to say what is right/wrong we should just scrap all laws". We have to have standards and values in our society, which means drawing lines at some point.

[Akira]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Steve, but yea. Put this out of its misery.

[Hababi]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Steve, but yea. Put this out of its misery.

"Akira agreed with me in a homosexuality thread!"

[Akira]

It's pretty amazing.

[Futue te Ipsum]

ted haggard is dreamy

[Smokey D]

I wish we could live in a perfect world where it didn't matter, but honestly, two heterosexuals kissing in public is looked at far differently to homos. It's great to sound all PC and everything, but I'm just expressing reality. Even homosexuals recognize this, which is why, in most parts of the country, you don't see PDA's from them a lot.

Dude, stop trying to hide your homophobia under the pretense of being concerned for people's safety or some retarded idea of respect. If someone finds the presence of black people in a white establishment disrespectful, we don't evict the black people. And since when do we wanna live in Iran?

There is a difference between accepting it and actually being ok with it. I accept it. Most people do. Its not like gays are being murdered all over the country, although they sometimes are. But being o.k. with it, embracing it, thats a whole other story.

Anyone who claims to accept homosexuality without being okay with it is a hypocrite. And gay people don't have to care what you or any other thing. They have a right to expression, and that you find the concept icky in no way imposes a prohibition on them.

Yeah it sucks. I'm not even arguing that its right really. I'm just saying, a lot of people would be far more uncomfortable seeing two guys playing grab *** in a public place than a man and a woman doing the same thing. I dunno what part of liberalville you live in, but I'm pretty sure thats the way it is most other places.


Maybe, but that's not relevant at all to whether they should do it.

[Mr. Ron]

Troof.

I am completely against homosexuality. It grosses me out, and I don't want to see it. If I saw two guys kissing right in front of me, I'd knock em out.

That being said, I'm not about to tell others how to live there lives, and I'm no scientist, so I don't know if homosexuality is decided from birth or if its a choice. I don't think anybody knows that, and if they say they do, they are lying. Even if we do figure that out, I don' think it matters.
I.....didn't expect this from you? :confused::amaze:

[Danger Bird]

Holy **** people actually think that way once they get out of junior high?

[Mr. Ron]

Why should you be "weirded out" when two men or two women kiss? Thats 3rd grade mentality at work.

[PerpetualBurn]

If I saw two guys kissing right in front of me, I'd knock em out.

Seriously, I don't see how anything else you've said has come close to allowing me to forget this part.

And all justifications you've given could be applied to any crazy idea we can come up with.

I personally am offended by women showing any part of their body in public...

[Danger Bird]

Nono it's okay because Against Miik is a REAL MAN HE DON'T TAKE NO QUEERS KISSIN IN PUBLIC

[Charlie Daniels]

Well this one time my friend took me to this "Gay Club" in hobart called flamingos. Well anyway it was at like 2am on a saturday night and i wandered into the mens room for a whizz. and like this guy was giving anohter guy a head job right next to the urinal and both stalls wer full (soundd liked ppl havin sex in em) and i kind of really didn't want to take a whizz next to too filthy faggots like that sucking dicks so I went outside to do it in an alley But as soon as I wandered into the alley this guy followed me so I had to hold on until I got back to my flat.

Thats filthy i'm now 100% against gays.

[PerpetualBurn]

I went in a pub in Stoke and feared for my life because I'm a Sheffield United fan.

I am now 100% against Stoke fans.

[Otherside]

I went into the black club and feared for my life because I am not black.

I am now 100% against black people.

[Akira]

Why should you be "weirded out" when two men or two women kiss? Thats 3rd grade mentality at work.

It's icky.

And it makes Jesus cry.

[PerpetualBurn]

I went into the black club and feared for my life because I am not black.

I am now 100% against black people.

The blacks > Stokies

[Ganondorf]

I don't have gays, but Against Miik does have a point, somewhat. Changing law is only going to come when public perception towards homos changes for the positive. Once this happens, the change in laws will eventually allow for gretaer acceptance by the public, which will in turn allow them more equalities etc (there's not much inequaltiy as it is anyway tbh).

It's similar to how Women gained Suffrage in Britain once they did laods of work on the homefront durign the war and they gained respect and were in tunr granted the ote. I know it's not ideal, but you can't run a country on pure ideals, you gotta have a give and take.

Simply forcing homosexuality on a nation which is not ''ready'' for it is, whilst morality acceptable, never going to do any good. ''Phasing in'' equality to compliment public attitudes is, in my mind, a generally mroe practicle and ultimately mroe constructive approach.

[south_of_heaven 11]

When I had a step-dad, his brother was gay and he was always around. Really nice guy. I don't agree with homosexuality morally, but that doesn't mean I can't be respectful towards them. I would have no problem hanging around them, talking to them, being friends with one of them, etc. I just don't agree with homosexual marriage but that isn't the topic here so w/e

[Otherside]

a slayer fan with a moral standard against homosexuality, lawls

[TJtheguitarist2]

I can't believe there are people who genuinely think that homosexuality, or bisexuality, or any kind of sexuality is a choice. It's completely ridiculous. I sure as hell can't find other guys attractive whether I try or not - and I can't "turn off" my attraction to women. wtf?

[Det_Nosnip]

Why should you be "weirded out" when two men or two women kiss? Thats 3rd grade mentality at work.

Actually, being weirded out by a man+woman kissing is 3rd grade. What you're describing is more junior high/closeted homosexual Republican senator. :p

Anyways, I have several gay friends have absolutely no problem with homosexuality. TBH, I kinda find homophobia immoral, but then my moral system isn't based upon an old book.

[Akira]

Well considering the bible says to love thy brother, your moral system is based upon an old book a lot more closely than a lot of so-called Christians.

[south_of_heaven 11]

a slayer fan with a moral standard against homosexuality, lawls

You'd be surprised at how many there are...I know I was.

[Cain]

The only man I've ever been attracted to was Peter Lindgren at an Opeth concert. That long hair and the way he was playing, damn he looked like a ****ing god.

So there. I said it.

Other than that, straight as an arrow. I love gay people, though, they have such a good sense of humor about sexuality and life, generally speaking. The militant ones are the only ones who piss me off, like certain lesbians who diss heterosexuality at every opportunity by claiming it reinforces the societal patriarchy. I have no use for that kind of bullshit.

And an odd thing about the debate over whether it is a choice or whether it's a born-with kind of thing...I firmly believe that the lesbianism of certain women can have direct ties to sexual or physical abuse by males in early childhood. Even if it's not a conscious decision, it can definitely increase the intensity of those feelings once puberty hits. Being scared of the psychic pain men with penises have caused in the past would be a powerful motivator to seek sexual expression and relief with women rather than men.

I think with men it's generally much more of a predisposition that can't be controlled.

[Invicta_Veritas]

I have nothing against it, and I think it's attributable to various things in different situations.

The only time I get angry straightaway is if a homosexual man will not stop hitting on me or something (yes, it has happened).

[Smokey D]

The only man I've ever been attracted to was Peter Lindgren at an Opeth concert. That long hair and the way he was playing, damn he looked like a ****ing god.

So there. I said it.

Other than that, straight as an arrow. I love gay people, though, they have such a good sense of humor about sexuality and life, generally speaking. The militant ones are the only ones who piss me off, like certain lesbians who diss heterosexuality at every opportunity by claiming it reinforces the societal patriarchy. I have no use for that kind of bullpoop.

And an odd thing about the debate over whether it is a choice or whether it's a born-with kind of thing...I firmly believe that the lesbianism of certain women can have direct ties to sexual or physical abuse by males in early childhood. Even if it's not a conscious decision, it can definitely increase the intensity of those feelings once puberty hits. Being scared of the psychic pain men with penises have caused in the past would be a powerful motivator to seek sexual expression and relief with women rather than men.

I think with men it's generally much more of a predisposition that can't be controlled.

Almost undoubtedly most people's sexuality is a product of both environment and genetic disposition. I doubt conscious choice comes much into attraction, though some people might find themselves attracted to both sexes and choose to only pursue relationships with one.

[Kaleid]

Almost undoubtedly most people's sexuality is a product of both environment and genetic disposition. I doubt conscious choice comes much into attraction, though some people might find themselves attracted to both sexes and choose to only pursue relationships with one.
And yet, many might see bisexuals as having the luxury of choice, even though they don't have control over the gender of the person they happen to be attracted to (mentally as well as physically)

[Smokey D]

Well, I guess bisexuals have a choice over what relationships they pursue since they are attracted to both sexes and thus have more people to be attracted to in general. I agree that there isn't much choice involved in which particular individuals they might be attracted to, though.

[Kaleid]

Pretty much. Which would make it annoying and unfair to intentionally opt for a heterosexual relationship in order to appease the sections of society that are outwardly homophobic. I don't buy any of the arguments that the power of choice should be used to avoid p***ing off the people who have a serious problem with it

[TojesDolan]

I dislike stereotypical people, otherwise I'm cool with everyone.

http://i17.tinypic.com/6xbq7ma.jpg

fitting.

[Det_Nosnip]

The only man I've ever been attracted to was Peter Lindgren at an Opeth concert. That long hair and the way he was playing, damn he looked like a ****ing god.

So there. I said it.

Other than that, straight as an arrow. I love gay people, though, they have such a good sense of humor about sexuality and life, generally speaking. The militant ones are the only ones who piss me off, like certain lesbians who diss heterosexuality at every opportunity by claiming it reinforces the societal patriarchy. I have no use for that kind of bullpoop.

And an odd thing about the debate over whether it is a choice or whether it's a born-with kind of thing...I firmly believe that the lesbianism of certain women can have direct ties to sexual or physical abuse by males in early childhood. Even if it's not a conscious decision, it can definitely increase the intensity of those feelings once puberty hits. Being scared of the psychic pain men with penises have caused in the past would be a powerful motivator to seek sexual expression and relief with women rather than men.

I think with men it's generally much more of a predisposition that can't be controlled.

lol that makes sense...

except not. :confused: Not wanting to have sex with men does not directly translate to wanting to have sex with women. One correlation that HAS been established is for people who are abused to later abuse others, often in the same way...how does THAT fit into your theory?

Abuse might prompt people to seek different outlets for their sexuality, but there's no great reason why that outlet has to be the same sex.

Most people who are gay report always feeling that they were somehow "different," and that they always somehow knew, even before admitting their homosexuality. There are gazillions of gay men and women who had perfectly happy, abuse-free childhoods, as well as gazillions of straight men and women who were bum-****ed to oblivion, which belies any reliable correlation IMO.

[Cain]

lol that makes sense...

Why in the heck are you so automatically dismissive and sarcastic about everything I post?

except not. :confused: Not wanting to have sex with men does not directly translate to wanting to have sex with women. One correlation that HAS been established is for people who are abused to later abuse others, often in the same way...how does THAT fit into your theory?

Abuse might prompt people to seek different outlets for their sexuality, but there's no great reason why that outlet has to be the same sex.

Most people who are gay report always feeling that they were somehow "different," and that they always somehow knew, even before admitting their homosexuality. There are gazillions of gay men and women who had perfectly happy, abuse-free childhoods, as well as gazillions of straight men and women who were bum-****ed to oblivion, which belies any reliable correlation IMO.

I agree but speaking from experience, I suspect that certain reactions to intimate reactions with men related to me by some of my lesbian friends--they spoke of feelings of disgust and shame and crippling fear--don't exactly make one think that their homosexuality was entirely to do with just that "different feeling," which yeah, was probably always there.

From the opposite perspective, but still supporting the notion of environmental experience dictating sexual behavior, I even know a girl who grew up a "popular girl" in high school and actually quite enjoyed and pursued sex with men until sophomore year of college when she had a sexual experience with a woman and it clicked with her that this is who she was, and her previous self definition came from being raised in an environment where homosexuality had never occurred to her in any conscious way. So what I'm saying is that while a lot of what you say is true, environmental and experiential factors do have an effect on the relative latency or even presence of homosexual behavior in certain circumstances. And a fear of men in the sexual sense instilled from from an early age can have a drastic effect on a person's predilection for who they eventually share sex with, especially if they're predisposed to one way over another. It can dictate, shall we say, the TYPE of homosexuality that is expressed.

One of my best friends was abused (the type of abuse I'm admittedly unsure, but I have strong reason to believe there was a sexual element to it based on her stories of romantic and intimate encounters with men and the feelings they gave her) by her father early on and when I met her could not accept a friendly hug from a male without feeling an impulse to physically injure him with her nails in self-defense. I have to believe that this was a powerful motivator to express romantic feelings with women rather than men, as she was one who likewise complained of sickness and physical repulsion at being kissed by men to the point where she would weep on the spot, whereas the vast majority of her emotional connection took place with women. Not saying she isn't gay, but I'm saying that her homosexuality is related to the things she's experienced.

I also know that many of the most militant lesbians on campus--those, who, as I said, downright despise and spit upon the notion of heterosexual love and stereotype men as being people out to, and I quote from one particular polemic from our campus feminist mag, "leave their wives when their vaginas are too stretched from birthing (emphasis mine) his kids for the 22-year-old maid down the street"--were themselves sexually abused and/or raped by men or male family members. Hence the militancy.

[Det_Nosnip]

Why in the heck are you so automatically dismissive and sarcastic about everything I post?
It's nothing personal.


I agree but speaking from experience, I suspect that certain reactions to intimate reactions with men related to me by some of my lesbian friends--they spoke of feelings of disgust and shame and crippling fear--don't exactly make one think that their homosexuality was entirely to do with just that "different feeling," which yeah, was probably always there.
You've explained why they don't sleep with men but NOT why they sleep with other women!

From the opposite perspective, but still supporting the notion of environmental experience dictating sexual behavior, I even know a girl who grew up a "popular girl" in high school and actually quite enjoyed and pursued sex with men until sophomore year of college when she had a sexual experience with a woman and it clicked with her that this is who she was, and her previous self definition came from being raised in an environment where homosexuality had never occurred to her in any conscious way. So what I'm saying is that while a lot of what you say is true, environmental and experiential factors do have an effect on the relative latency or even presence of homosexual behavior in certain circumstances.
Fair enough...but IMO they do not "create" or "modify" sexuality. A thousand other women could have had her exact same experience and thought "well, that was interesting, but it didn't really do it for me."

And a fear of men in the sexual sense instilled from from an early age can have a drastic effect on a person's predilection for who they eventually share sex with, especially if they're predisposed to one way over another. It can dictate, shall we say, the TYPE of homosexuality that is expressed.
I still don't see where you're going with this. A sheep is as much not a man as a woman is...actually, it's quite a bit more (err...confusing negative tenses FTW), yet these women do not immediately spring on the nearest sheep farm...what is it that draws them specifically to women?
One of my best friends was abused (the type of abuse I'm admittedly unsure, but I have strong reason to believe there was a sexual element to it based on her stories of romantic and intimate encounters with men and the feelings they gave her) by her father early on and when I met her could not accept a friendly hug from a male without feeling an impulse to physically injure him with her nails in self-defense. I have to believe that this was a powerful motivator to express romantic feelings with women rather than men, as she was one who likewise complained of sickness and physical repulsion at being kissed by men to the point where she would weep on the spot, whereas the vast majority of her emotional connection took place with women. Not saying she isn't gay, but I'm saying that her homosexuality is related to the things she's experienced.
Her lack of heterosexuality is related, but it does not follow that her homosexuality takes the place by default.
I also know that many of the most militant lesbians on campus--those, who, as I said, downright despise and spit upon the notion of heterosexual love and stereotype men as being people out to, and I quote from one particular polemic from our campus feminist mag, "leave their wives when their omnibuss are too stretched from birthing (emphasis mine) his kids for the 22-year-old maid down the street"--were themselves sexually abused and/or raped by men or male family members. Hence the militancy.
Ok. That explains the militancy...but NOT the homosexuality!

[Lupus]

They don't like men but they still need a sexual outlet so they go for women, is it so hard to understand?

The desire for sex is as much a product of genetic and environmental factors as sexuality itself.

[Det_Nosnip]

Right.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, teenage girls are known to tease and humiliate certain teenage males mercilessly. However, this seems to make them become more sadistic towards people in general rather than make them gay?!

[Det_Nosnip]

RRRRRRight.

[Babble]

I'm curious to know what a stereotypical person is

I've never actually met one of those

[Aklerc]

Firstly: This whole "they're lesbians because they were abused" is kind of a null point really. Sure, it MIGHT (if perhaps they were verging on bisexuality) push them to women in certain situations for certain women if they were abused, but that's such a general statement to make with only a few people you know that it's not really saying anything. All of the gay men and gay women I know had abuse-free childhoods and are perfectly normal functioning human beings.

Militant lesbians: The whole "I hate men" thing is very stereotypical. Again another general statement that doesn't speak on behalf of the majority. Especially with our younger generation, the feminist movement is less prevalent (sp?) anyway.

Quite frankly I don't understand homophobia. Two (or more, depending on what tickles your pickle) consenting adults, causing no harm to ANYONE expressing their feelings for each other. That's it. The general feeling I get around homophobic people is that as soon as they think/hear "homosexual" or "gay" their brain goes WHOOOOSH to anal sex. People can't seem to grasp the fact that two people of the same sex are attracted to each other without thinking about sex all the time. Okay, you may not fancy someone exploring your exit cave with their love stick but why the hell should you 'disagree' with it? There's something else I don't get, when pople say "I disagree with homosexuality". What is there to disagree with? The only difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is the fact that when they're naked they can go "Hey you have a (delete as appropriate) vagina/penis! So do I! Cool!"

End of.

And then there's those who say "as long as they keep it behind closed doors and don't impose it on me" like it's some dirty, perverted act of immorality. If straight people have the right, then gay people have the right. And if you disagree with that, you have some serious problems. Hell if I see ANY couple eating their faces off in public I think "get a room" but guess what... I just don't look. You feel sick at the sight of two men holding hands? Look away.

Gay people aren't trying to flaunt it in your face/ come onto you/ fight for "special" rights/ practise PDAs at every possible opportunity. if you think any of those things, if you think that they should get out of your faces, maybe you should try speaking to some and you'd realise that really, all they want to do is stop being a freakshow, stop being a debate, stop wondering if people are staring at them or are going to shout at them and just stop being an issue.*


*feel free to argue about gay prides/parades but I really can't be bothered to discuss it. And before you do (if you do) there's a massive amount of gay people that hate gay pride as well.

[Dr Hooch]

It's all dice, and saying they should 'keep it behind closed doors' is frickin' childish, all things considered.

It's like saying "I've got no problem with fat people being together as long as they do it behind closed doors, it's disgusting"

If you blame your religion that's no dice either; you're the one choosing to accept everything it says. I don't see it as a valid excuse for thoughtless generic segregation and hatred.

[beso negro]

i have some gay friends, and my sister is gay, so i am used to it.

[The Flying Barron]

Gays and pedophiles should be strictly prohibited from teaching in any schools for obvious reasons.. So that means no equal rights, no parades either. If they want to do their perverted business then let them do it in privacy but not in public bathrooms, or in anyway to brainwash healthy children. Children should not have ideas brought upon them in school, which is supposed to be a neutral environment not for molding their brains into, "oh having 3 dads is normal."

[sweboy]

lol

[Cain]

lol you lose

[Cain]

Firstly: This whole "they're lesbians because they were abused" is kind of a null point really. Sure, it MIGHT (if perhaps they were verging on bisexuality) push them to women in certain situations for certain women if they were abused, but that's such a general statement to make with only a few people you know that it's not really saying anything. All of the gay men and gay women I know had abuse-free childhoods and are perfectly normal functioning human beings.

Good point. I stand corrected, or rather, ignorant.

Militant lesbians: The whole "I hate men" thing is very stereotypical. Again another general statement that doesn't speak on behalf of the majority. Especially with our younger generation, the feminist movement is less prevalent (sp?) anyway.

Same with this. I guess my only defense is that this is something that I am acutely aware of in my environment at school but it's such a cultural bubble it's probably a mistake for me to make broader judgements off it. It does, however, illustrate that the stereotype is lived up to in certain situations, and that there can be real-world reasons for that that should be discussed.

[samariah]

Gays and pedophiles should be strictly prohibited from teaching in any schools for obvious reasons.. So that means no equal rights, no parades either. If they want to do their perverted business then let them do it in privacy but not in public bathrooms, or in anyway to brainwash healthy children. Children should not have ideas brought upon them in school, which is supposed to be a neutral environment not for molding their brains into, "oh having 3 dads is normal."

What obvious reasons?

also, why are you lumping homosexuals together with pedophiles? what would a homosexual do in a public bathroom that is any different than a heterosexual?

[The Flying Barron]

What obvious reasons?

also, why are you lumping homosexuals together with pedophiles? what would a homosexual do in a public bathroom that is any different than a heterosexual?
Firstly, how do you know the supposed gay would be a pedophile or not? Secondly, that gay shouldn't be filling children's minds with his ideas that being gay is natural. Quite frankly it's a crime against nature. There have been cases of homosexuals performing certain sexual acts in bathrooms, and this has become more and more frequent. They should keep it within their own privacy.

[Mr. Ron]

Gays and pedophiles should be strictly prohibited from teaching in any schools for obvious reasons.. So that means no equal rights, no parades either. If they want to do their perverted business then let them do it in privacy but not in public bathrooms, or in anyway to brainwash healthy children. Children should not have ideas brought upon them in school, which is supposed to be a neutral environment not for molding their brains into, "oh having 3 dads is normal."

weeeeeuuuwwwwww weeeeeeeeuuuuwwwww halt! You're under arrest for being a complete ****tard


Firstly, how do you know the supposed gay would be a pedophile or not? Secondly, that gay shouldn't be filling children's minds with his ideas that being gay is natural. Quite frankly it's a crime against nature. There have been cases of homosexuals performing certain sexual acts in bathrooms, and this has become more and more frequent. They should keep it within their own privacy.
You know who does that too?


heterosexuals.


Do you have sound evidence that homosexuality isn't natural?

[Cain]

wow i didn't know i could make someone's rep go down about seven of those little squares

[Mr. Ron]

wow i didn't know i could make someone's rep go down about seven of those little squares

I negged him as well like, a second ago.

[Light_Fantastic]

wow i didn't know i could make someone's rep go down about seven of those little squares

I had to neg that homophobe too... What bigoted garbage.. terrible stuff...

[The Flying Barron]

Pathetic... negative rep for disagreeing, and the best opposition so far was "lol u lose" and some other crap.

[Mr. Ron]

Pathetic... negative rep for disagreeing, and the best opposition so far was "lol u lose" and some other crap.

nah I negged you for not being logical and making hateful statements.


please show me your evidence for your claims.

[Cain]

Pathetic... negative rep for disagreeing, and the best opposition so far was "lol u lose" and some other crap.

sorry but people like you can't really be argued with, so all i can do is just shake my head at your incredible level of ignorance and subject you to the best punishment this particular court has the ability of awarding.

[The Flying Barron]

nah I negged you for not being logical and making hateful statements.


please show me your evidence for your claims.

You negged me because apparently my opinion hurts you.

[Cain]

You negged me because apparently my opinion hurts you.

nope it's what he said.

such deplorably negative and hateful stuff is evidence that you are totally ignorant about gay people and is therefore totally unworthy of being debated. hence, terse statements about what an idiot you are and neg rep.

[Mr. Ron]

You negged me because apparently my opinion hurts you.

no, your opinion didn't hurt me, I actually laughed. I just like making red squares appear when morons open their mouths.

[The Flying Barron]

Gays and pedophiles aren't perverts? Your mind has been brainwashed completely. Btw, negrep me all you want, whatever makes you feel better.

[Mr. Ron]

Gays and pedophiles aren't perverts? Your mind has been brainwashed completely. Btw, negrep me all you want, whatever makes you feel better.

Tell me how a homosexual is any more perverted than a heterosexual, please.

[Cain]

Gays and pedophiles aren't perverts? Your mind has been brainwashed completely. Btw, negrep me all you want, whatever makes you feel better.

gay people sure don't act perverted

they're actually pretty normal

[Light_Fantastic]

Gays and pedophiles aren't perverts? Your mind has been brainwashed completely. Btw, negrep me all you want, whatever makes you feel better.

Talk about ignorant and misinformed. Who told you you were supposed to lump Gays, and pedophiles in one group.
Most pedophiles are not gay, they have a sick love and lust for children. I Have many gay friends who are wonderful parents and would never be involved in such perversion. Why would anyone lump those two things together?

[-1up!-]

You negged me because apparently my opinion hurts you.

Bigoted, homophobic, ignorant, hateful and (most importantly of all) unfounded statements like the ones you made should assure you a safe spot in the ocean among starving sharks.

[The Flying Barron]

Tell me how a homosexual is any more perverted than a heterosexual, please. They have a greater tendency of being perverted. Simply put, there is no procreation involved in homosexual lifestyles. Normal families built on family values aren't perverted. Gays who just want to take it in the rear and teach children "its ok" are perverts.

[Mr. Ron]

They have a greater tendency of being perverted. Simply put, there is no procreation involved in homosexual lifestyles. Normal families built on family values aren't perverted. Gays who just want to take it in the rear and teach children "its ok" are perverts.

Evidence please.

[Reaganista]

i dont want to teach children 'it's ok' i want to teach them 'it's awesome'

[The Flying Barron]

Evidence please.Gave you an explanation in my reasoning. Use your brainwashed logic to prove me wrong first.

[Mr. Ron]

Gave you an explanation in my reasoning. Use your brainwashed logic to prove me wrong first.

um no you didn't give me any evidence whatsoever, all you did is make an opinion without backing it up. if gays are more inclined to be "perverted", then there must be evidence to say so, am I right?

[Reaganista]

it's doesn't matter if they're perverted or not

[Eliminator]

no but you see gays are gays and how can you be gay without be a perverted sodomite

[Iskandar]

Simply put, there is no procreation involved in homosexual lifestyles. And this is a problem why?

[The Flying Barron]

um no you didn't give me any evidence whatsoever, all you did is make an opinion without backing it up. if gays are more inclined to be "perverted", then there must be evidence to say so, am I right?
Stop evading my reasoning and look at that post as a whole. Prove it wrong with your logic, because right now you're saying you cannot. If evidence is certainly necessary we will get to that point.

[Mr. Ron]

Stop evading my reasoning and look at that post as a whole. Prove it wrong with your logic, because right now you're saying you cannot. If evidence is certainly necessary we will get to that point.

lol ok

restate your main point as to why homosexuals are all perverted pedos.

[beso negro]

im pos repping barron for making this thread interesting, even though i disagree.

[The Flying Barron]

lol ok

restate your main point as to why homosexuals are all perverted pedos.
I'm sorry you're brainwashed.

Here's my main point:
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15807686&postcount=183

im pos repping barron for making this thread interesting, even though i disagree.
I'm afraid you're the only one here who doesn't suffer severe hypocrisy. I respect civil debate, not this load of horse crap I've just seen be thrown around by the opposition.

[gregulus]

Firstly, how do you know the supposed gay would be a pedophile or not?
How do you know a heterosexual will not be a pedophile?

Secondly, that gay shouldn't be filling children's minds with his ideas that being gay is natural.
Who's to say his ideas are wrong? Do you really think he CHOSE to be gay?

Quite frankly it's a crime against nature.
Evidence? A priori statements in situations like this are useless.

There have been cases of homosexuals performing certain sexual acts in bathrooms, and this has become more and more frequent. They should keep it within their own privacy.
Heterosexual people do the same thing.

Gays and pedophiles should be strictly prohibited from teaching in any schools for obvious reasons..
Because of your a priori assumptions?

So that means no equal rights, no parades either.
That certainly doesn't follow from the sentence before this (which is just as flawed).

If they want to do their perverted business then let them do it in privacy but not in public bathrooms, or in anyway to brainwash healthy children.
How is it brainwashing? How do you know they do things in bathrooms?
Children should not have ideas brought upon them in school,
Aren't presenting ideas to children what schools are for? To teach them?
which is supposed to be a neutral environment not for molding their brains into, "oh having 3 dads is normal."
So teaching them that homosexuality is wrong is remaining neutral?

They have a greater tendency of being perverted.
Again with the a priori assumptions. Situations like these require evidence to be validated.
Simply put, there is no procreation involved in homosexual lifestyles.
This is irrelevant.
Normal families built on family values aren't perverted.
Well, for years "normal family values" included a submissive wife, overly obedient children and a perpetuation of slavery. Here's to maintaining the status quo at all costs. "Normal family values" exist only because that's what people were raised to believe. There aren't some objective set of values that all heterosexual, white picket fence, 2 SUV's in the driveway, PS3 hooked up to the TV families must adhere to.
Gays who just want to take it in the rear and teach children "its ok" are perverts.
Why?

[Mr. Ron]

They have a greater tendency of being perverted. Simply put, there is no procreation involved in homosexual lifestyles. Normal families built on family values aren't perverted. Gays who just want to take it in the rear and teach children "its ok" are perverts.

Why does it matter that they cannot procreate? What about straight couples that cannot procreate? I don't see how that is a problem.


Oh please, the "family values" argument is so weak. A gay couple is perfectly capable of having family oreintated values.

I can bet you do not know ANY homosexuals in real life. And you're talking about being brainwashed? You're just another wannabe tough guy who is incapable of reason or logic.

[gregulus]

Why does it matter that they cannot procreate? What about straight couples that cannot procreate? I don't see how that is a problem.


Oh please, the "family values" argument is so weak. A gay couple is perfectly capable of having family oreintated values.

I can bet you do not know ANY homosexuals in real life. And you're talking about being brainwashed? You're just another wannabe tough guy who is incapable of reason or logic.

Dude, I heard you could get AIDS by looking at them.

[Mr. Ron]

Dude, I heard you could get AIDS by looking at them.

It is only when you sever the head from the torso, will a homo die. I also hear silver bullets harm them as well.

[samariah]

what is a "normal" family? it doesn't exist. why can't homosexuals build a strong, healthy family?

you provide no backing for any of your "arguments."

[Mr. Ron]

what is a "normal" family? it doesn't exist. why can't homosexuals build a strong, healthy family?

you provide no backing for any of your "arguments."

I asked for his evidence, he doesn't have any, so all he will do is point back to his "logic" which isn't really logic.

[samariah]

i don't mind it so much when people intelligently disagree, but this is ridiculous

[gregulus]

It is only when you sever the head from the torso, will a homo die. I also hear silver bullets harm them as well.

I'm not going into another public bathroom until I get a big knife to do that with then. They do things in them.



:rolleyes:

[Cain]

debates from people like this always remind me of the charter for the flat earth society

which basically amounts to: "we have undeniable proof that the earth is actually flat, and that is the fact that it is a proven and undeniable fact that the earth is flat."

[The Flying Barron]

How do you know a heterosexual will not be a pedophile? It should be a priority to make sure no teacher is a pedophile, but it is possible for a pedophile to claim rights to teaching with an "innocent" grounds of being just homosexual.


Who's to say his ideas are wrong? Do you really think he CHOSE to be gay? There's no evidence that gays are born gay, this can
only be established by DNA testing. If it was genetically proven for gays to be gay, then they'd be extinct by now.


Evidence? A priori statements in situations like this are useless.Hehe, well I should consult mother nature then unless it's completely obvious a wiener inside a bum doesn't establish an offspring. Therefore mother nature is hating on gays because there'd be no chance for them to survive alone.

Because of your a priori assumptions?For obvious brainwashing reasons.


That certainly doesn't follow from the sentence before this (which is just as flawed).Yes it does, parades are a lesser tactic for imposing homosexuality on people. What should children be thinking when they see half-naked men striding the streets touching each other and making gestures?


How is it brainwashing? How do you know they do things in bathrooms?
http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=4398

Aren't presenting ideas to children what schools are for? To teach them?School isn't a grounds for making children lenient for either right nor left, they are supposed to develop that on their own. Leave science and anatomy to making it obvious what goes where and what is normal.


So teaching them that homosexuality is wrong is remaining neutral?No, and don't make such assumptions. Like I said, science and nature can do all the explaining.

Why does it matter that they cannot procreate? What about straight couples that cannot procreate? I don't see how that is a problem. Unnatural intercourse would be considered lust. Gays have no chance for procreation, nor is anal sex intended for it.


Oh please, the "family values" argument is so weak. A gay couple is perfectly capable of having family oreintated values. Haha, you must be confused what family values are then.


I can bet you do not know ANY homosexuals in real life. And you're talking about being brainwashed? You're just another wannabe tough guy who is incapable of reason or logic.I already knew you were incapable of reason and logic so you require a spoon fed article delivered to your very nose.

[samariah]

It should be a priority to make sure no teacher is a pedophile, but it is possible for a pedophile to claim rights to teaching with an "innocent" grounds of being just homosexual.

so? that isn't a logical reason to ban homosexuals from teaching. even if some pedophiles are homosexual, it doesn't mean all homosexuals are pedophiles.



Hehe, well I should consult mother nature then unless it's completely obvious a wiener inside a bum doesn't establish an offspring. Therefore mother nature is hating on gays because there'd be no chance for them to survive alone.

nature doesn't "hate" on anything. it doesn't have intentions. other animals perform homosexual acts all of the time. its quite natural and normal. what makes homosexuality inherently wrong? your distaste for it? i don't think so.

[PerpetualBurn]

Who cares if homosexuality is "natural"?

At least gays probably get more enjoyment from sodomy than I do from wearing glasses.

If they don't, they're probably doing it wrong.

[Hababi]

Who cares if homosexuality is "natural"?

At least gays probably get more enjoyment from sodomy than I do from wearing glasses.

If they don't, they're probably doing it wrong.

Or you're getting far too much pleasure from wearing glasses.

[Smokey D]

Don't feed the trolls. You guys are really bad at this.

[samariah]

yeah good point

[PerpetualBurn]

I think I enjoy glasses the appropriate amount.

Even if they are obscuring my God-given, natural, and therefore superior eyes.

Though I only wear them for driving in my all natural car.

Don't feed the trolls. You guys are really bad at this.

I get confused.

Am I trolling right now or not?

[Hababi]

I think I enjoy glasses the appropriate amount.

Even if they are obscuring my God-given, natural, and therefore superior eyes.

Though I only wear them for driving in my all natural car.


http://www.toytokyo.com/productImages/2174_1.jpg
?


I get confused.

Am I trolling right now or not?

yes

Rep to whoever tells me the term I'm looking for, meaning someone who can't derive pleasure from anything. It's been on the tip of my tongue for days :(

[samariah]

yeah the entire unnatural argument is bull

[PerpetualBurn]

http://www.toytokyo.com/productImages/2174_1.jpg
?



As long as the wood was cut with an all natural saw.

yes

Oh right.

Rep to whoever tells me the term I'm looking for, meaning someone who can't derive pleasure from anything. It's been on the tip of my tongue for days :(

Bishop?

[samariah]

anhedonia?

[The Flying Barron]

yeah the entire unnatural argument is bull

Clever response. You've proven your intellectual worth and ability to debate.

[Hababi]

anhedonia?

Thank you, you get rep.

[PerpetualBurn]

Clever response. You've proven your intellectual worth and ability to debate.Ooh ooh ooh. Please, Sir! Pick my argument!

[samariah]

Clever response. You've proven your intellectual worth and ability to debate.

no i didn't. at least not in that statement.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well I'm still not sure if I'm trolling or not, but it was probably easier for him to ignore where I demonstrated that whether something is natural is irrelevant to whether we consider it moral.

[The Flying Barron]

so? that isn't a logical reason to ban homosexuals from teaching. even if some pedophiles are homosexual, it doesn't mean all homosexuals are pedophiles. It isn't the reason alone. Like I said, school should be neutral and not imposed by someone's agenda.

nature doesn't "hate" on anything. it doesn't have intentions. other animals perform homosexual acts all of the time. its quite natural and normal. what makes homosexuality inherently wrong? your distaste for it? i don't think so.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but the point of nature is to multiply to prolong life and nature, is it not? Homosexuals have no chance at survival left alone on an island with the most favorable climate and abundant resources.

As to regards with animals, who are driven primarily on instinct, certain mating aromas, body temperature and signals may give a misunderstood response for say a male bull to mount an another male bull. It is hard for animals who do not have such developed minds as humans to always tell which is the opposite sex.

[Shell]

Unnatural intercourse would be considered lust. Gays have no chance for procreation, nor is anal sex intended for it.


Haha, you must be confused what family values are then.

I already knew you were incapable of reason and logic so you require a spoon fed article delivered to your very nose.

so any kind of sex that isn't intended to procreate is bad?

just curious - what are your "family values" ?

[Cain]

It should be a priority to make sure no teacher is a pedophile, but it is possible for a pedophile to claim rights to teaching with an "innocent" grounds of being just homosexual.

um but a heterosexual pedophile can do the same thing

the problem is clearly with pedophiles and not with gays

Hehe, well I should consult mother nature then unless it's completely obvious a wiener inside a bum doesn't establish an offspring. Therefore mother nature is hating on gays because there'd be no chance for them to survive alone.

Is a man who has anal sex with his girlfriend or wife and doesn't produce any offspring gay, perverted, or unnatural? Besides, women don't have "weiners," so either you're an avid fan of lesbian porn or you are typical of most insecure men in your fear of other penises for leaving women out.

Yes it does, parades are a lesser tactic for imposing homosexuality on people. What should children be thinking when they see half-naked men striding the streets touching each other and making gestures?

If children are intrigued by that they're probably gay already anyway.

Homosexuality is not a process of social conditioning. You can't be peer-pressured into being turned on by the sight of another naked man, nor can you become gay just by saying "well that looks like a good idea." There will be a proportion of gay people to straight people and this hardly threatens the human race in any way especially with the advent of modern technology and solutions such as artificial insemination and adoption, which are anything but perverted.

The major problem with all of these arguments is that they imply that heterosexuals will automatically be better at all of these things because they are favored by nature. Aside from the woefully outdated eugenics style reasoning for this argument, being heterosexual doesn't ensure that you will procreate, raise a family well according to any particular value system, or anything like that. There's no difference between them. Homosexuals can be pedophiles--heterosexuals can be pedophiles. Homosexuals can be bad parents--heterosexuals can be bad parents. There is nothing inherent in the sexual orientation that causes people to be one way or the other.

[Smokey D]

I get confused.

Am I trolling right now or not?

No, the Baron character.

[The Flying Barron]

No, the Baron character.
Should have left option 2 out of the poll then. Though it would then be established that everyone's views are generally the same.

[Iskandar]

Watch out for the Flying Barron. He may support fascism.

[gregulus]

It should be a priority to make sure no teacher is a pedophile, but it is possible for a pedophile to claim rights to teaching with an "innocent" grounds of being just homosexual.
If someone is a pedophile, whether or not he was gay would be irrelevant.
There's no evidence that gays are born gay, this can
only be established by DNA testing.
It's a lot more complex than simple "DNA testing."
If it was genetically proven for gays to be gay, then they'd be extinct by now.
That doesn't make sense, but I'll assume you're saying, "if homosexuality was natural, then they would be extinct by now," which is an not correct. The human race reproduces, you know.
Hehe, well I should consult mother nature then unless it's completely obvious a wiener inside a bum doesn't establish an offspring.
Again, whether or not homosexuals reproduce is irrelevant. Two people who do not have a particular trait (at least not outwardly expressed) can mate to have a child with a particular trait. Go sit in on the first week of lecture in a basic genetics course.
Therefore mother nature is hating on gays because there'd be no chance for them to survive alone.
So? Lots of people are unable to reproduce/don't want to reproduce. Reproduction is not relevant.
For obvious brainwashing reasons.
What?


Yes it does, parades are a lesser tactic for imposing homosexuality on people. What should children be thinking when they see half-naked men striding the streets touching each other and making gestures?
You're basing the "half-naked men" idea on a completely and total stereotype. The vast majority of gay individuals do not fit this stereotype.


http://kerryfoxlive.com/wordpress/?p=4398
One store? As for the other places, straight people often agree to meet up with one another as well. Meeting up with strangers to do the dirty is something that occurs in both orientations. Just like in heterosexual culture, though, very few gay people in the grand scheme of things actually do this.

School isn't a grounds for making children lenient for either right nor left, they are supposed to develop that on their own. Leave science and anatomy to making it obvious what goes where and what is normal.
OK. I can fit a penis in an anus, just like I can fit a penis in a mouth or a vagina. Can't reproduce through oral sex either. Is it wrong? You also fail to clarify how a gay teacher will make his students gay. Chances are, they will have no idea. Even if they did, it shouldn't effect their education at all.

No, and don't make such assumptions. Like I said, science and nature can do all the explaining.
Then I guess your entire idea is gone.

Unnatural intercourse would be considered lust. Gays have no chance for procreation,
So straight people who are unable to produce viable offspring shouldn't ever have sex?
nor is anal sex intended for it.
But can they not get pleasure from it?
So straight people who are unable to produce viable offspring shouldn't ever have sex?


Haha, you must be confused what family values are then.
Why is this?

[Cain]

Should have left option 2 out of the poll then.

Again the problems are not with your opinion, neccesarily, but for the complete lack of support for any of your points and the clearly bigoted framework they emerge from. These are things that render any opinion you have pretty invalid in the realm of reasonable discussion.

[Iskandar]

Jeez, we had this debate like 3 years ago.

[Mr. Ron]

Jeez, we had this debate like 3 years ago.

Yes, but do they deserve rights?

[Hababi]

Jeez, we had this debate like 3 years ago.

Haven't you learned by now that most in PNWI would far prefer saying the same things about the same two or three topics, over and over again, to varied and thoughtful new threads?

But John McCain pwned Mitt Romney and I'm happy!

[Iskandar]

Yes, but do they deserve rights?Sexual perversion is an obstacle to our glorious nation rising again to conquer the inferior races.

[McP3000]

Gay men are just as perverted as straight men, its just since gay guys **** other gay guys, they get to express their perversion more often. The straight guys get pepper spray.

[Mr. Ron]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

[guitrguy]

That was a cluster ****

[The Flying Barron]

If someone is a pedophile, whether or not he was gay would be irrelevant. That's not the case. He won't tell you he is, but if he is accused he could try to pass off as a homosexual since it isn't considered as bad. End of story.

It's a lot more complex than simple "DNA testing."really? Do tell. Seriously.


That doesn't make sense, but I'll assume you're saying, "if homosexuality was natural, then they would be extinct by now," which is an not correct. The human race reproduces, you know.No... if homosexuality was natural, they'd survive since they'd be able to reproduce.. Mother nature intended for us to reproduce, as you've said. :) But mother nature is a hater!:mad: She didn't give poor homosexuals a fighting chance for reproduction/survival! How can this be!? Homosexual sex is natural and since it is completely natural the sperm should end up as offspring since that is their natural process/cycle. Something, doesn't add up though.... your logic, yeah that's it.:)


Again, whether or not homosexuals reproduce is irrelevant. Two people who do not have a particular trait (at least not outwardly expressed) can mate to have a child with a particular trait. Go sit in on the first week of lecture in a basic genetics course.Since this is a matter involving complex genetics and DNA involvement I suggest a study can be provided to back this up. Philosophical reasoning and logic has its worth in many places, but this time it doesn't. Btw, go read *insert book title here* isn't a valid argument, nor is "go to skewl".

So? Lots of people are unable to reproduce/don't want to reproduce. Reproduction is not relevant.But if reproduction is not the intent, then perversion/lust is. So if reproduction is not the case, then my claim that gays are perverts is valid. See, not everything requires evidence for you mindless goons, you just have to think a little!


You're basing the "half-naked men" idea on a completely and total stereotype. The vast majority of gay individuals do not fit this stereotype.Eh, don't tell me half-naked men don't flaunt themselves in gay-pride marches. Don't tell me they strut in traditional Muslim garments for women. If you do, I'll just say you're living in a crazier world than Crazy World.

One store? One example. Unfortunately I have better things to do than to google the intrweb all day.

As for the other places, straight people often agree to meet up with one another as well. Meeting up with strangers to do the dirty is something that occurs in both orientations. Just like in heterosexual culture, though, very few gay people in the grand scheme of things actually do this. Some how I doubt heterosexuals are more inclined to think, "mm I'm up for some sex so I'll just go into the local women's bathroom. None of those bars, clubs, strip joints, or hookers for me!"


OK. I can fit a penis in an anus, just like I can fit a penis in a mouth or a omnibus. Can't reproduce through oral sex either. Is it wrong?Hell you got me on that one... But it must be natural though, well as long as it barely fits... yep. I can have sex with a garbage truck in public, must be natural and normal though. Theoretically I can **** anything I see so it must be natural. Where do you get off with calling me the ignorant and retarded one? If hypocrisy was as valuable as gold, this forum would get ransacked in 30 seconds.

You also fail to clarify how a gay teacher will make his students gay. Chances are, they will have no idea. Even if they did, it shouldn't effect their education at all.Teachers are leading role-models for kids, and if teachers engage in such abnormal behaviors, it is likely that it will influence the children at least unconsciously, to do something of the same nature.


Then I guess your entire idea is gone.Really? the fallopian tubes are located in men's anuses then? What the hell!?


So straight people who are unable to produce viable offspring shouldn't ever have sex? Their motives and intentions could quite possibly be clean and for procreation. They could try as best as they can to reproduce, or believe it could be possible, still they'd have the right intentions. With gays, it's only physically impossible to reproduce, so sex for the sake of lust is the only case.

But can they not get pleasure from it? For ****s sake, you can get pleasure from ****ing a water hydrant!

So straight people who are unable to produce viable offspring shouldn't ever have sex? Yawebalehoo Uma at ka man nanehojudab.



Why is this?

You're a complete waste of time.

BTW, I was negrepped and called a "bundle of sticks" (among many other things) for voicing my view on homosexual behavior. Whatever that means, (I assume it's some stupid cheap insult due to the encryption of this forum). It just gave me a smile on my face to know you take a forum so seriously, it's sad and pathetic. Also the fact that preaching tolerance in an intolerant fashion must be embedded in a stone tablet around here. :)

[Reaganista]

gays can reproduce

reproduction and perversion dont have any inherent relationship

lot's of straight people have anal

etc

For ****s sake, you can get pleasure from ****ing a water hydrant!
you sound like a pervert

[VomitStainedCretin]

No... if homosexuality was natural, they'd survive since they'd be able to reproduce.. Mother nature intended for us to reproduce, as you've said. :) But mother nature is a hater!:mad: She didn't give poor homosexuals a fighting chance for reproduction/survival! How can this be!? Homosexual sex is natural and since it is completely natural the sperm should end up as offspring since that is their natural process/cycle. Something, doesn't add up though.... your logic, yeah that's it.:)Nature is not an entity who imposes moral laws on its subjects. Besides which, we do not always act 'naturally', i.e. as would best be suited if we wished to pass on our genes, this is not an objective moral obligation, the world is much more complicated than that.

[PerpetualBurn]

No... if homosexuality was natural, they'd survive since they'd be able to reproduce..

Plenty of people are born sterile.

It's still natural.

And being natural has no relation to being thought moral.

[ringworm]

Plenty of people are born sterile.

It's still natural.
?? thats a defect, not a normal condition? right?

[DBoons Ghost]

?? thats a defect, not a normal condition? right?

It's not a "defect" persay but it's not normal. It is natural though. It's nature's way of saying you can't reproduce normally.

[ringworm]

yeah, its a natural way to ensure defective traits dont get passed to future generations

[DBoons Ghost]

yeah, its a natural way to ensure defective traits dont get passed to future generations

Well.. modern medicine has advanced well enough to correct some defective traits. Genetic sterility in humans is actually quite rare anyway.

[ringworm]

i am building up to something i know will get everyone inflamed

i will stop

[DBoons Ghost]

i am building up to something i know will get everyone inflamed

i will stop

That's ridiculous. That's like "hey I got something to tell you".. then saying "nah..forget it".

[Aklerc]

The Flying Barron: Now I can't tell whether you're just trolling for the hell of it/joking/being serious. I'm going to respond anyway.

Homosexuality: Choice or not?

Could you be sexually turned on by men by will? I know I sure couldn't. Sexuality in any sense of the word is not a choice, but that doesn't mean it's genetic. It could be a nurture, could be partly genetic, situations throughout your life- anything. All I know is that it is not a conscious decision. You can go and ask ANY homosexual whether it's a choice and they will say no. It's YOUR choice whether to believe them or not. There have been homosexuals through thousands of generations and in countries/civilastions where they faced being lynched/tortured/killed. Why would people choose that when it would be easy to choose to fall in love with the opposite sex? Now if you can't accept that I'm being honest when I say it's not a choice, that's your decision; that's your choice.

The Unnatural Argument

I'd like to know what your definition of 'nature' is. Things that occur in nature? In which case... homosexuality occurs in nature therefore it's natural. Have you ever taken any sort of medication? That's unnatural isn't it? You could argue that anything that has come out of man-made production is unnatural. That doesn't mean it's bad. Or perhaps you mean homosexuality is abnormal? Well it's less common than heterosexuality so yeah, you could class it as abnormal. Really tall people are abnormal. People with six toes are abnormal. Albinos are abnormal. They're allowed to teach though.

Just because something is different doesn't mean it's wrong.


The Reproduction Argument

Firstly, gay people can reproduce. Secondly, who cares? Unless you never use birth control and never partake in sexual acts except for intercourse then you have no leg to stand on. Fact is, people these days normally have sex for pleasure, heterosexual or homosexual.


Gay Pride Parades

As many gay people as straight people hate gay pride marches. It's not reflective of the gay community.


Homosexuals Are All Perverts/Paedophiles

Question: Have you ever met a homosexual? I'm assuming no. Since you have no evidence/statistics to prove this I'm going to dismiss it. It's as flippant as saying "Heterosexuals all enjoy eating mayonnaise on pancakes". Yes, there may be some that do, but there is no way of proving it.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your opinion, however, happens to include wanting to impose your views on society. On people that consent to do something in their private life that causes no harm to others. Now I've had gay/lesbian teachers and the majority of my friends are still straight and some people are still homophobic. This leads me to believe that the sexual orientation of teachers doesn't affect their students. And quite frankly, any teacher that reveals intimate details about their sex life to their student should be fired.

[ringworm]

That's ridiculous. That's like "hey I got something to tell you".. then saying "nah..forget it".

well, its a shame that topics such as these have become like global warming, rhetoric is so abundant and if you disagree with the norm, well, you know what happens, some topics have just been closed and arent open for discussion without accepting the reprocussions that occur when you have a conflicting opinion


and good post Herbert

[DBoons Ghost]

well, its a shame that topics such as these have become like global warming, rhetoric is so abundant and if you disagree with the norm, well, you know what happens, some topics have just been closed and arent open for discussion without accepting the reprocussions that occur when you have a conflicting opinion


and good post Herbert


Majority rules buddy. I am not intellectual enough to post in this forum but I still do.

[gregulus]

That's not the case. He won't tell you he is, but if he is accused he could try to pass off as a homosexual since it isn't considered as bad. End of story.
Um, why would sexual orientation be a valid excuse of pedophilia? Inappropriate sexual relations with children are inappropriate sexual relations. Being attracted to a grown man is not the same thing as doing things to a young boy or girl.

really? Do tell. Seriously.
Well, behavioral characteristics are often polygenic, or they are determined by the interaction of multiple genes. Sexual orientation is no different. Knowing all of the genes involved in the determination of a particular behavioral trait is something not currently doable, at least for a lot of them. That said, doing a DNA test without definitively knowing what to look for is pointless.
No... if homosexuality was natural, they'd survive since they'd be able to reproduce.. Mother nature intended for us to reproduce, as you've said. :) But mother nature is a hater!:mad: She didn't give poor homosexuals a fighting chance for reproduction/survival! How can this be!? Homosexual sex is natural and since it is completely natural the sperm should end up as offspring since that is their natural process/cycle. Something, doesn't add up though.... your logic, yeah that's it.:)
The species is reproducing. I don't understand your point. Homosexuals are surviving because they obviously still exist, and have existed for a long time. It doesn't take two gay people to make another gay person. Take a genetics course.

Since this is a matter involving complex genetics and DNA involvement I suggest a study can be provided to back this up. Philosophical reasoning and logic has its worth in many places, but this time it doesn't. Btw, go read *insert book title here* isn't a valid argument, nor is "go to skewl".
As I stated in a point above this, behavioral genetics is very complex and relies on interaction between multiple genes. Science currently does not have the knowledge to determine all of the genes involved in the development of a particular behavioral trait, as some of the roles of particular genes may be so minute, but important nonetheless. Genetics influences a lot more than just physical appearance. This has been known for years.

I don't know how many of the sources you will understand, as I don't know how familiar you are with genetics, but go here: http://cirge.stanford.edu/behavioral_genetics_2006/reading.html

But if reproduction is not the intent, then perversion/lust is. So if reproduction is not the case, then my claim that gays are perverts is valid. See, not everything requires evidence for you mindless goons, you just have to think a little!
Why is lust equivalent to perversion? That doesn't make sense. Is it perverted for two heterosexual individuals to lust for one another?

Eh, don't tell me half-naked men don't flaunt themselves in gay-pride marches. Don't tell me they strut in traditional Muslim garments for women. If you do, I'll just say you're living in a crazier world than Crazy World.
Then don't tell me that that guy is representative of the entire gay community.

One example. Unfortunately I have better things to do than to google the intrweb all day.
Well, if it's as common as you say it is, you should be able to find evidence in a couple of minutes. But I'll just continue to say the same thing I did to this one.

Some how I doubt heterosexuals are more inclined to think, "mm I'm up for some sex so I'll just go into the local women's bathroom. None of those bars, clubs, strip joints, or hookers for me!"
Well, the most obvious obstacle for this is the fact that a male in a women's restroom is an automatic red flag. Don't tell me heterosexual couples don't do things in public (cars, movie theaters, etc). Also, you're assuming the whole of the gay community actually go to cruising grounds. This is wholly inaccurate. It is the vast minority that actually do.

Hell you got me on that one... But it must be natural though, well as long as it barely fits... yep. I can have sex with a garbage truck in public, must be natural and normal though. Theoretically I can **** anything I see so it must be natural. Where do you get off with calling me the ignorant and retarded one? If hypocrisy was as valuable as gold, this forum would get ransacked in 30 seconds.
So anal sex is unnatural because it's tighter? And your comparison is ridiculous. Having sex with another human being is not the same thing as having sex with a garbage truck. Are heterosexual couples are participate in anal sex as bad as gay people who do? What's the difference?

Teachers are leading role-models for kids, and if teachers engage in such abnormal behaviors, it is likely that it will influence the children at least unconsciously, to do something of the same nature.
Again with the abnormal comments. Why is it abnormal?

Also, your influence argument is unfounded. Firstly, you assume the teacher will discuss their sex life with their students. It would be inappropriate for a teacher to discuss with his/her students, regardless of orientation, the details of her sex life. Secondly, unless the students are predisposed (i.e., genetically inclined) to have such tendencies, knowing that homosexuality is OK will do nothing but make them more accepting.

Really? the fallopian tubes are located in men's anuses then? What the hell!?
Stop assuming that all sex has to be for reproduction. Heterosexual couples have intercourse all the time without the intent of reproduction. In fact, we have multiple ways to PREVENT reproduction from occurring. This argument is wrong.

Their motives and intentions could quite possibly be clean and for procreation. They could try as best as they can to reproduce, or believe it could be possible, still they'd have the right intentions. With gays, it's only physically impossible to reproduce, so sex for the sake of lust is the only case.
So heterosexual couples who have sex without the intent of reproduction have wrong intentions? Have you never had sex for pleasure? If people don't want kids they shouldn't have sex? Sex is just as much for pleasure at it is reproduction. Enjoyable sex without the intent of reproduction can be very beneficial.

For ****s sake, you can get pleasure from ****ing a water hydrant!
Again with the absurd comparisons.

Yawebalehoo Uma at ka man nanehojudab.
Dodging the argument?

You're a complete waste of time.
Because you know I'm right.

[gregulus]

yeah, its a natural way to ensure defective traits dont get passed to future generations
Not really. That's one of the perks of sexual reproduction in the first place. With asexual reproduction, any sort of deleterious mutations are automatically passed to the offspring of the organism. Sexual reproduction allows a species to get rid of (or lessen the effects of) such mutations sooner (take out the trash, if you will) and to hold on to mutations that could be beneficial later.

[gregulus]

well, its a shame that topics such as these have become like global warming, rhetoric is so abundant and if you disagree with the norm, well, you know what happens, some topics have just been closed and arent open for discussion without accepting the reprocussions that occur when you have a conflicting opinion


and good post Herbert
That's probably because there are no valid arguments against gay people. At least I have never encountered one.

[McP3000]

That's probably because there are no valid arguments against gay people. At least I have never encountered one.
Gay people smell like lysol