+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: This is sooo gay (/showthread.php?tid=473)
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Well all I can do is be sorry that you close out large segments of the population to what they deserve... just like was done to black people once. And with the level of hate that is there... I don't see change soon. There are far too many stupid people with a huge hate-chip on their shoulder to even think about it... because there is no sane backing for your hate except your fear of "them" and what they would do to your precious value system that excludes them and many other groups... so you, as I'd expect, react violently. Its natural... sad, but natural.
If only you could see how incredibly stupid and hateful you sound towards a group that does nothing to deserve it... the posts really aren't deserving of a full response... that'd bring things to your level... you make so many assertions that are so absurd that I can't even begin...
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Rome and Greece were great civilizations but neither was successful. Both were eventually destroyed by outside invasions, but as any student of history knows, a great empire can only fall from without when it is weakened from within. The societies of those civilizations, when they fell, were in total collapse. Rome and Greece were failures, and massive ones at that. Homosexuality obviously isn't a chief cause of that decayed moral structure but it almost certainly didn't help matters. Let's also remember that Roman culture, in addition to hosting widespread homosexuality, also was a common ground for incest. Incest was as accepted as homosexuality, and rape was rather frequent as well. Am I supposed to accept incest and rape as acceptable just because the Romans did? If one must accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable on those grounds, one must also accept those on the same grounds.
Wha?? You're listing rape and incest with homosexuality in immortality simply because they happened to be part of an empire that eventually collapsed? That's silly logic.
Let's also not forget that under the law of entropy, everything must break down and come to an end anyway.
Quote:History aside, our culture, and especially our homosexual culture is much different than ancient Rome. In Rome, homosexuality was a common practice. In modern times it is not common, at least on such a level. I'll use America as an example for posterity. Homosexual activity today is less taboo than previously, but it is still an action that most, myself included, do not approve of. It is an action that many find immoral, and the practice of it damages our morals. We are told that we should accept behavior that we find repulsive. That itself damages society, especially when that acceptance is forced on us.
Not everyone is repulsed by homosexuality. Homosexuality becoming accepted as a lifestyle by everyone would kill both these birds with one stone: homosexuals, as you claim in your generalization, wouldn't get their kicks by flaunting their alternative lifestyle to others, it being less deviant, while at the same time, the rest of society wouldn't be forced to witness something that disgusts them, as it wouldn't disgust them in the first place.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Well all I can do is be sorry that you close out large segments of the population to what they deserve... just like was done to black people once. And with the level of hate that is there... I don't see change soon. There are far too many stupid people with a huge hate-chip on their shoulder to even think about it... because there is no sane backing for your hate except your fear of "them" and what they would do to your precious value system that excludes them and many other groups... so you, as I'd expect, react violently. Its natural... sad, but natural.
If only you could see how incredibly stupid and hateful you sound towards a group that does nothing to deserve it... the posts really aren't deserving of a full response... that'd bring things to your level... you make so many assertions that are so absurd that I can't even begin...
You never actually do read what I post, which is why your responses have nothing to do with what I just said. You just wasted your time responding to something I never said. Please read my posts in the future before responding to them. Had you read my post, you might have picked up this line: "Now I certainly don't advocate harrassment of gays, because I think whatever a person does in their bedroom is up to them." That little matter aside, I do think they go against my 'precious' values system, not in that they are doing what they do, but in that the homosexual subculture wishes to force normal people to accept their lifestyle as equal to heterosexual lifestyles, and that is simply absurd, because the idea of gay sex disgusts me to the core of my being. Like I said before, heterosexuals don't make an issue out of being heterosexual, there's no reason a homosexual should either, unless they have an agenda to push, and those that push the issue always have an agenda. Again, if people want to be gay, they can do so as far as I'm concerned, but don't tell the world about it because the world doesn't give a shit.
Quote: Wha?? You're listing rape and incest with homosexuality in immortality simply because they happened to be part of an empire that eventually collapsed? That's silly logic.
It's silly, I agree, but this whole idea is based on ABF's assertation that homosexuality should be accepted because it was practiced in these empires that were historically important. I list rape and incest with homosexuality in immorality because I believe all three of those sexual activities are depraved. It's got nothing to do with Rome.
Quote: Not everyone is repulsed by homosexuality. Homosexuality becoming accepted as a lifestyle by everyone would kill both these birds with one stone: homosexuals, as you claim in your generalization, wouldn't get their kicks by flaunting their alternative lifestyle to others, it being less deviant, while at the same time, the rest of society wouldn't be forced to witness something that disgusts them, as it wouldn't disgust them in the first place.
Most people are repulsed by it on some level. True, homos would no longer flaunt their sexuality, they would then proceed to popularize it, and then encourage people to do it. Therein lies my problem, that's a scenario I never want to see, yet would be inevitable.
This is sooo gay - big guy - 2nd April 2003
yes, gays flaunt the fact that their gay, because their trying to free themselves from the oppression of the unaccepting. the blacks did the same thing in the 60's with civil rights. huge rallys, marches on washington, all just to say "we're black, and things have got to change."
why should gays have to hide the fact that they're gay? blacks don't have to hide the fact that their black. jewish people are a minority in the US, should they not be allowed to walk down the street with yamecha's on? and i don't think this is so farfetched, because if homosexuality is genetic, it's no different from being black, and if it's a product of someone's upbringing, it's no different from being jewish.
and i've never said that homosexuality should be accepted becuase it was practiced in rome and greece, only that it didn't cause a collapse of their society, like N_A said it would do to ours.
and i also think that a string of bad rulers, mongol invasions, moving the capital of rome to the far eastern part of the empire (making it less centralized, obviously), couple this with a history of oppression against the lower class, finalized by a massive series of attacks by the germanic peoples had far more to do with romes collapse than homosexuality.
and i'll end with a question, are homosexual women as repulsive as homosexual men? because i've met folks who say it's cool when girls are gay, but for guys it's wrong. so i'm curious.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Finally someone who agrees with me posts so its not just me against everyone...
Quote:yes, gays flaunt the fact that their gay, because their trying to free themselves from the oppression of the unaccepting. the blacks did the same thing in the 60's with civil rights. huge rallys, marches on washington, all just to say "we're black, and things have got to change."
Well, yeah, except that I wouldn't say that most gay people do that...
Quote:why should gays have to hide the fact that they're gay? blacks don't have to hide the fact that their black. jewish people are a minority in the US, should they not be allowed to walk down the street with yamecha's on? and i don't think this is so farfetched, because if homosexuality is genetic, it's no different from being black, and if it's a product of someone's upbringing, it's no different from being jewish.
Yeah... though being Jewish is somewhat inherited too -- remember it started out as one nation. The only problem? What we both know: they will never accept that gays and lesbians should be compared to black people...
Quote:You never actually do read what I post, which is why your responses have nothing to do with what I just said. You just wasted your time responding to something I never said. Please read my posts in the future before responding to them. Had you read my post, you might have picked up this line: "Now I certainly don't advocate harrassment of gays, because I think whatever a person does in their bedroom is up to them." That little matter aside, I do think they go against my 'precious' values system, not in that they are doing what they do, but in that the homosexual subculture wishes to force normal people to accept their lifestyle as equal to heterosexual lifestyles, and that is simply absurd, because the idea of gay sex disgusts me to the core of my being. Like I said before, heterosexuals don't make an issue out of being heterosexual, there's no reason a homosexual should either, unless they have an agenda to push, and those that push the issue always have an agenda. Again, if people want to be gay, they can do so as far as I'm concerned, but don't tell the world about it because the world doesn't give a shit.
No, in this thread I don't read all you post... its just too much to take...
And whether you actively persecute homosexuals isn't the point... saying things like you and N_A did is MORE than enough...
Saying that they should keep it hidden just to make you feel better is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time... it, as big guy said, is exactly like how in the '60s lots of white people didn't want black people around because they "disgusted them to the core of their being". No difference I can see.
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Most people are repulsed by it on some level. True, homos would no longer flaunt their sexuality, they would then proceed to popularize it, and then encourage people to do it. Therein lies my problem, that's a scenario I never want to see, yet would be inevitable.
Whoa, that sounds a little paranoid. What makes you think that homosexuals are evil virii set out to make everyone like them ( especially if they enjoy being different, as you've implied)? Homosexuality may disgust you, but is anyone forcing you to watch brown eye between two guys? And socially, what's so disturbing about seeing gender-atypical people?
Quote:and i'll end with a question, are homosexual women as repulsive as homosexual men? because i've met folks who say it's cool when girls are gay, but for guys it's wrong. so i'm curious.
You're forgetting the golden rule for lesbians (as it's obvious that a major woman's role in our society is to be sexy and stimulate the men): if the lesbians are dykey, or fat, or ugly, or unattractive in any way, then it fades back into being uncool. But hey, if they're lipstick lesbians, it turns otherwise homophones on, so they can accept the homosexual women.
It's such a ridiculous double-standard... anyone who openly expresses such a mentality shouldn't expect to be respected...
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 2nd April 2003
Since all of you opted to write novels in your posts, I haven't read anything previously. I will now simply explain what I think about the whole thing briefly.
I am not a homosexual, however I have met a couple homosexuals. They are not evil people, they're not "wrong" for what they do, and just so long as they keep their personal lives to themselves, I don't have a problem with them.
It's their life. It's their decision. I made the desicion to be known online as EdenMaster. Weltall made the desicion to run TendoCity. It's no different. Nobody's life choice, unless illegal, is wrong.
Let them do as they will, and as long as they don't share what they do behind closed (closet) doors, they're just like you and I. The stereotypical gay person is very flamboyant and obviously proudly gay, you probably see gay people every day of your life, and you'd never know it.
Let them do as they will.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
I don't see why you'd say "all" gay people show it off, etc... that just isn't true by any stretch of the imagination...
As for Edenmaster... sounds nice until you start calling it a "choice"...
Feel free to hate anyone you want... but not to try to convert anyone else to your doctrine or to make anyone else do what you want to satisfy your hatred... like white supremacists. They have the right to say their hate statements... but not to act on them. As it should be.
You'll say you don't do anything. Well you do... you say things like what you say here -- patently false hate statements that do nothing except make people more angry...
Oh, and how can you say that it is alright for people to be fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartments just because of how much you hate their homosexuality... its not OK to do that to people because of religion, gender, age, or those things anymore... why should it be for this? There is no difference...
This is sooo gay - Darunia - 2nd April 2003
I think gays should do whatever they want. I'm completely open to them being free. But I don't undrestand why people say it's their choice; no one, NO ONE, choosed to be gay...anymore then you or I would just arbitrarily choose it. It's psychological or mental, a mental disorder. NO one chooses it.
As for gays flaunting it, theres only one openly gay kid at my school, and he is loud and does flaunt it around.
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 2nd April 2003
Openly gay is the key term. People like him are what I mean about stereotypes, they exist, they just aren't the majority. You say he's the only one, I'm sure there are quite a few more than you realize passing you in the halls every day.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yeah... though being Jewish is somewhat inherited too -- remember it started out as one nation. The only problem? What we both know: they will never accept that gays and lesbians should be compared to black people...
You're right, we won't, because you can't choose what skin color or nationality you're born with. You can and do choose your sexuality. And I don't think anyone deserves any special rights because they
Quote:And whether you actively persecute homosexuals isn't the point... saying things like you and N_A did is MORE than enough...
Saying that they should keep it hidden just to make you feel better is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time... it, as big guy said, is exactly like how in the '60s lots of white people didn't want black people around because they "disgusted them to the core of their being". No difference I can see.
There is a difference, and I must restate it because you keep overlooking it: Being black is not something a person can choose, unless they love bleach baths. Racial discrimination is rotten because being born a certain color is 100% unavoidable. Being gay is a choice, it's a preference, as you all have offered exactly zero proof to the contrary. THAT'S where the difference lies. All that I said is that I don't want homosexuality to become socially acceptable because it's a disgusting act. I wouldn't want that just as I would not want incest legal and popular. It's sick. It's morally reprehensible. However, at least homosexuality, which is legal, I don't care about if it's kept private. And yes, they should keep it hidden. NO ONE should make their sexual life public. As I said, those that do only do so because they want the attention. And sometimes they get the wrong kind of attention, but you take the bad with the good. It's not a matter of hatred, and I don't hate gay people, in fact I've been friends with a few, and have worked for some, and they have all been decent people (except one, but that's a totally different story.) The thing is, I had no problem with it: They didn't tell people about what they did. Word gets around of course, which is how people find out, but these people I knew did not make an issue out of it, and so long as that happens, they are a-ok with me. If I boasted to them about my heterosexuality I'm sure they'd feel animosity towards me too. It's the ACT, and more prominently, the increasingly acceptable opinion of some people about that act.
And ABF, of all people, you have no right telling anyone to stop indoctrinating, you're more guilty of that than anyone.
Quote: Whoa, that sounds a little paranoid. What makes you think that homosexuals are evil virii set out to make everyone like them ( especially if they enjoy being different, as you've implied)? Homosexuality may disgust you, but is anyone forcing you to watch brown eye between two guys? And socially, what's so disturbing about seeing gender-atypical people?
Nobody's forcing me to watch it, but I am being forced, by you, to accept that act as morally correct. You tell me I'm supposed to allow them special rights because they do this. You tell me I'm supposed to think that they had no choice (a common liberal quip, liberals also think looters, robbers, murderers and rapists cannot control their actions either). There's no reason I should accept homosexuality as normal, or allow it to be as legitimate as heterosexuality. But that does not mean I can't respect gay people for being people. That I do. If they keep their sex lives private like all people should, then there would be no problems.
Quote:You're forgetting the golden rule for lesbians (as it's obvious that a major woman's role in our society is to be sexy and stimulate the men): if the lesbians are dykey, or fat, or ugly, or unattractive in any way, then it fades back into being uncool. But hey, if they're lipstick lesbians, it turns otherwise homophones on, so they can accept the homosexual women.
It's such a ridiculous double-standard... anyone who openly expresses such a mentality shouldn't expect to be respected...
There's a slight difference, you see. Lipstick lesbians are putting on a show. They're no more gay than the actors on Six Feet Under. But you know, it's only natural that homosexual acts by the opposite sex are more accepted... guys like seeing two naked women doing it, because it means that they can jack off to porn that has no men in it. The main difference is that these fake lesbians aren't pushing an agenda, they're just making a paycheck. Anyway, I don't see what validity that has to do with anything.
Quote: Oh, and how can you say that it is alright for people to be fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartments just because of how much you hate their homosexuality... its not OK to do that to people because of religion, gender, age, or those things anymore... why should it be for this? There is no difference...
...Except that homosexuality is a choice. I honestly don't think homosexuality should be a reason to fire or evict someone. I don't think ANY reason should apply unless stated rules are being broken, not just for being gay, but for any reason. The difference lies in that your race, gender and age are not choices (which is the inevitable truth that ruins your arguments), and therefore sexual deviance does not deserve a special protection. However, what I don't want to see is gays being awarded a higher status, one that would benefit from affirmative action and hiring quotas. And that's what the gay culture wants, to be rewarded financially for choosing to be gay. And that's simply ridiculous.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Well this will not go anywhere as I said in the first post. You will never accept the basic fact of the situation (that for almost all homosexuals its about as much a choice as being black is). So I won't bother...
And its extremely, extremely stupid how you keep comparing something people have no control over (being homosexual) to murderers or thieves... they have nothing in common... for some criminals is it not a choice? Yeah... if they are in a certain mental state, they do lose control of their ability to think clearly... but it shouldn't absolve them of all responsiblity for the crime unless they are actually mentally retarded or insane...
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 2nd April 2003
ABF, you aren't born with the preconcieved notion that you're going to be gay. Animal instinct, which includes humans, drives species to procreate and have sex with the opposite sex, so as to reproduce. It's nature, it's unavoidable, it's proven fact.
Sex between two men and two women, however, is different. These people are doing what they are doing for pleasure. It is impossible to procreate with a member of the same sex. You're trying to override the billion year old human instinct to mate with something that is merely fun for them. It's foolish.
You're born with the urge to mate with the opposite sex and carry on your genes, thats the main, underlying goal of every single life on this planet, be it human, animal, fish, or microbe. Everything lives to continue it's species, it's the way the world works, and has for countless millenia.
You can choose to be gay, but you certainly aren't programmed to be.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
That is what you think... but its just not correct for all people... for most? Sure. But not for all. I mean... why is it so absurd that for some people their genes are in some way different (how it gets that way of course I have no idea) and predisposes them towards liking the same gender? I just don't get why that's such a absurd idea... not in a very large number of whatever species you are talking about, but in some...
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 2nd April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Well this will not go anywhere as I said in the first post. You will never accept the basic fact of the situation (that for almost all homosexuals its about as much a choice as being black is). So I won't bother...
And its extremely, extremely stupid how you keep comparing something people have no control over (being homosexual) to murderers or thieves... they have nothing in common... for some criminals is it not a choice? Yeah... if they are in a certain mental state, they do lose control of their ability to think clearly... but it shouldn't absolve them of all responsiblity for the crime unless they are actually mentally retarded or insane...
You know, instead of repeating your stupidity and saying I should accept it just because you say it is, why don't you actually try and find proof that homosexuality is genetic or hereditary? I know it's hard, as the very notion of a 'gay gene' is retarded beyond description, yet it's a lie you cling to as your only defense in this argument. So prove it. Find me at least one accurate and accepted scientific document proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is preprogrammed into some people, because until you do, you're just spewing shit as far as I'm concerned. I've already outlined how science proves it's not genetic or hereditary (and funny how science, your god, is suddenly wrong). and it's basic high school scientific fact. Such a trait could not last this long in human history because such a trait could not be passed on by way of reproduction, as the very act of being gay PREVENTS REPRODUCTION. That simple, proven scientific fact alone insures that if homosexuality were genetic, it would have disappeared thousands of years ago, as it cannot pass on.
There. I've offered proof how homosexuality isn't genetic that any source dealing with genetics can supplicate. I dare you to refute it. I dare you to prove to me how the ONLY preference a human can be born with is homosexuality. If you don't want to try, that's okay, but until you do, you're just an unquantified armchair geneticist twisting scientific fact to suit your purposes.
Don't disappoint me.
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 2nd April 2003
Anything is possible, I suppose, but you're suggesting a large number of people have faulty genes, and while one or two people with some screwy DNA is of course probable, a large percentage, such as gay people.
One other thing, even though it may sound as though I'm joking, I'm serious. How would gay genes get passed down. Honestly. If you have sex with a person of the same gender, you can't have kids, and your bloodline is a dead end, nobody inherits your genes. So then how do they get passed down to others at all? Why have the simple laws of nature not made the gay person extinct, then?
That's rhetorical, I don't mean to make it seem like you're on the stand at court while I drill questions at you :)
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 2nd April 2003
Hey! I thought of using the whole "How do the genes get passed down" thing first! You just posted quicker!
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Do you think I'm stupid enough to actually think that if I spent the time to find some information (I never said I know much details... I justk know you're wrong because your ... opinion ... makes no sense whatsoever) you'd listen? Yeah right! (Weltall/N_A)
This is sooo gay - big guy - 2nd April 2003
i don't know whether it's genetic, or because of upbringing, but i'm fairly certain that it isn't a choice. like i posted earlier, having spoken with gay people i've known, they have all said it's just something you realize over time. they can't explain why they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, but they just aren't and there's nothing they can do about it.
they don't just wake up one day and say "i'm going to be gay."
i honestly do not know why a person is gay, but i refuse to believe that it is a concious choice.
Gay people can still have babies because lesbians can visit a sperm bank, or can find a man who's willing to impregnate them...and gay men can find women who are willing to carry their babies. so a gene could be passed down.
plus, it's possible that if there was a gene coded for homosexuality it could just be recessive, and only expressed very rarely, but is carried by many heterosexual people. and it's not so farfetched to think that there would be a reproductive hindering recessive trait, as such traits exist all through nature. for example, in fruit flies, there are genes that code for curled, or wrinkled wings, making it impossible for the fly to...fly. this results in a near 100% fatality rate, but the trait still appears. it's crazy.
all i'm saying is that there's really no evidence one way or the other. genetic, upbringing, choice...it could be a combination of them all.
i know gays don't march on washington, i was saying that that's what blacks did that was outspoken, like when gays are.
the lipstick lesbian double standard is ridiculous. and not all lipstick lesbians are fake. there are plenty of effeminate lesbians, i've met several. plus, i think it's even more "morally reprehensible" to be homosexual for a paycheck than it is to do it out of legitamate caring and affection for the other person.
you're saying it's ok to be gay as long as your a whore. but it's filthy to actually care for a person of the same sex? that seems strange to me.
now, another question. is masturbation as wrong as homosexuality? the church tells you not to do it. it doesn't help the species survive...hell, when you think about it, it's sex with a member of the same sex. is it as "wrong" as being gay?
that's all for now
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 2nd April 2003
Well, if I can prove my point, and you can't prove yours, that makes for an extremely one-sided debate. I'd definitely listen if it were accurate and generally accepted. You're just copping out because you know you can't find it. I challenged you knowing the outcome. You fight me with liberal opinions, but I beat you with scientific fact. The fact that you're just advancing a liberal agenda has finally come to light.
Thanks for playing. Insert quarter to continue.
:love:
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 2nd April 2003
Couldn't have said it any better myself, big guy... its just too bad that they'll never listen.
Oh, and yeah, saying that people actually choose to be gay is so stupid that it proves you have no clue what you are talking about and most probably have never asked such questions of homosexuals... it just defies everything I've ever heard about from any source that would have a clue (read: not people like you)...
Oh, it probably does have a part... mental attitude means a lot... but the prime factor? Only in your paranoid, terrified little mind...
This is sooo gay - Darunia - 3rd April 2003
What kind of an idiot would CHOOSE to be gay!? No one! Did Hitler choose to be a shithead? No! Did I choose to be a Goron! No! Did Drew Barrymore choose to be my loveslave? No!
Did Gays choose to be gay? No! We don't all control our destinies; no one can flip a switch and suddenly be gay, anymore than gays can undo it and be straight.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 3rd April 2003
Blah blah blah, little man. I think it's far more ridiculous to think that certain special people are born with irresistable urges to screw people with the same set of genitals as they have, I mean, it sounds funny just saying it, because it's bullshit. I think the paranoid and terrified one is the one who deludes himself into thinking that human beings cannot decide anything for themselves. Why do you keep trying to press your point when all I want from you is some sort of respectable scientific proof backing your statement? You claim your position is one of truth and mine one born of hatred, yet you refuse to prove it and just tell me that I'm wrong despite the facts I've displayed to you in different ways. You're just a blind little mouse who wishes to desperately cling to your irrational falsehoods.
Quote:i don't know whether it's genetic, or because of upbringing, but i'm fairly certain that it isn't a choice. like i posted earlier, having spoken with gay people i've known, they have all said it's just something you realize over time. they can't explain why they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, but they just aren't and there's nothing they can do about it.
they don't just wake up one day and say "i'm going to be gay."
i honestly do not know why a person is gay, but i refuse to believe that it is a concious choice.
If you commit the act, then you are making a choice. You cannot do anything involving another human being without some measure of will. That's likea fat person saying he has no choice but to eat, he does have a choice but is weak-willed and makes the choice that makes him fatter. For a man to initiate a sexual encounter with another man (or women and women, if you prefer) requires thoughtful premeditation and will. As to whether they are attracted to the same sex, that's usually a product of upbringing, but even that can be circumvented by someone with a strong will. It's definitely not genetic, and I've outlined why. There is an unquestionably conscious choice involved, unless the sexual act in question is a rape.
Quote: plus, it's possible that if there was a gene coded for homosexuality it could just be recessive, and only expressed very rarely, but is carried by many heterosexual people. and it's not so farfetched to think that there would be a reproductive hindering recessive trait, as such traits exist all through nature. for example, in fruit flies, there are genes that code for curled, or wrinkled wings, making it impossible for the fly to...fly. this results in a near 100% fatality rate, but the trait still appears. it's crazy.
all i'm saying is that there's really no evidence one way or the other. genetic, upbringing, choice...it could be a combination of them all.
That's really unlikely, because such a gene, as I stated numerous times, could not last very long, as homosexuals don't reproduce very often.
Anyway, a good reason homosexuality isn't genetic is because of bisexuality. Bisexuality is proof positive that sexual preference is indeed a choice, and that some people can't choose just one. Can genetics explain bisexuality? Of course not. Nor can it explain sexual preference at all. Choices are made by a person's brain, not their genetic code.
Darunia: Some people choose to be gay because they associate mostly with women, or other gay men, or because the lifestyle attracts them. But it is most definitely a choice. If anyone remembers Anne Heche, Ellen DeGenerate's former lesbian lover, you'll know she proved that you can choose to switch from gay to straight again if you really want to. Yet more proof supporting my opinion.
So anyway, if you guys want to keep repeating your falsehoods and congratulating each other for repeating them, I'm finished with this topic, as I believe N_A and I satisfactorily proved your errors. If you want to substantiate your opinions with something other than false liberal babble and lying accusations of gay-hate, I'm all ears (or eyes, as it were). Until then, you're wasting my time and making yourselves look like uneducated children who know far less than they think.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 3rd April 2003
The fact that you honestly believe that you have refuted anything proves how deluded you are... I read your post here and about all I think is "how in the world can a sane person actually believe that? Its ridiculous!"...
Ah, I forgot that because you think its unnatural that that makes it so... of course! I mean... why let facts stand in your way? You sure don't let them very much... its just stupid to say "because I don't like it it can't be true". If you can't see that, you are incredibly dense...
As for bisexuality, I fail to see how that proves or disproves anything other than that those people might have that gene (or genes, I don't know...) somehow activated for both genders... why that is out of the question is beyond me...
Of course the act itsself is choice. But um, who you like isn't... as we've said a dozen times (and you will ignore a dozen more if we say it that many) is that it ISN'T! Homosexuals DO NOT SEE THE OTHER GENDER AS ATTRACTIVE IN THE SAME WAY HETEROSEXUALS DO! Its just a basic fact that is NOT explainable by just mental state! I mean... if homosexuals were attracted to the other gender that way they'd be bisexual, not homosexual... it doesn't work all ways. They cannot choose which they want to be... anyone (such as "ex-gay" people "converted" by christian groups) were either in the relatively small 'only in their mind' group or are fooling themselves, trying to make it true... while their biology cannot be changed by something like mental state...
Quote:That's really unlikely, because such a gene, as I stated numerous times, could not last very long, as homosexuals don't reproduce very often.
How would you know? I bet that in the past lots and lots of homosexuals have not known what they were and had unhappy/loveless (on their end anyway) marriages that produced children... I bet that for most of human history it was hardly rare, especially given how most people didn't know homosexuality existed... or if they did knew it was repressed...
Oh, and I tried to avoid this argument before it started because I remembered that we had the same one a few months ago and that the result was the same... Weltall ignored everything I said while strangely saying that I wasn't doing anything to prove my points... just like now. It's really pointless to argue this with people as set in their hate as Weltall and N_A here.
This is sooo gay - EdenMaster - 3rd April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, and I tried to avoid this argument before it started because I remembered that we had the same one a few months ago and that the result was the same... Weltall ignored everything I said while strangely saying that I wasn't doing anything to prove my points... just like now. It's really pointless to argue this with people as set in their hate as Weltall and N_A here.
All right, fine then. I don't hate gay people, I've said that. Sure, I'd be a bit uncomfortable if I got stuck in an elevator with a gay man, but wouldn't we all? However I can have a normal conversation or joke around with a person be he straight or gay. As long as it doesn't involve me, I couldn't give a rats ass what they do behind cosed doors.
There, now you have an impartial observer here.
I'm no longer going to take sides in this, as far you're concerned, I no longer have an opinion on this topic. I'll just mediate what you say.
So here is a challenge to both of you. Weltall and A Black Falcon. In your next posts, I ask you to put down every case you have backing up your argument, I will read them, and make a desicion by what you say.
Convince me which side is right. I anticipate your replies.
This is sooo gay - Great Rumbler - 3rd April 2003
ABF, I am curious as to why your are trying to continue this debate and instead of posting evidence to support your claim you merely say "it's would be a waste of my time" and "your opinions are totally absurd and/or completely stupid". You could at least try to back up your claim.
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 3rd April 2003
Biological or behavioral, I doubt it's a choice. If sexual attraction to certain genders/fetishes is as simply as Weltall assesses, then that would mean that I could transform myself into a fecalphiliac at will. And that just blows my mind. I think I'm going to do it, though- it'd sure make masturbation much more interesting.
But without getting too graphic, let's say that you weren't sexually attracted to something the rest of society was sexually attracted to, and as a result, you were left out on certain rights as marriage and protection against discrimination. How would you feel? Would you deny your own love for your own sexuality and throw away your pursuit of happiness just to fit in? Where are the ethics in that?
Alright, so let's hypothetically say that homosexuality CAN be changed, and a person's mind and emotions can somehow be reprogrammed to think the same as everyone else. Even if this were true, I think most reasonable people would agree that it isn't easy. The extent of what this person could do is repress his/her sexual urges, and through years of therapy and denial live his/her life struggling to be heterosexual, think as a heterosexual, and try and deny his/her natural sexual wants, something that's ALWAYS there but must always be battled against.
So, still considering this hypothetical situation, let's get something straight (no pun intended LMAAO!!!!111): You think it's more ethical for these homosexuals to go through life denying their true nature, pretending to be heterosexual, and throwing away a large pursuit of happiness (because let's face it- love is a large part of pursuit of happiness, and to love someone, you have to some degree be sexually attracted to them, to express that love in physical ways), than for you to just accept that person's decision to live out their true sexuality and be given the same rights as straight people? Is that what you call ethics? Denying someone who's different than the rest of society basic human rights that they should be entitled to just so you don't have to think about who they are and what they do in bed?
Let's make one thing clear, though: I don't feel that sexual deviants should be included in affirmative action, or be given tax cuts, or any other special rights. However, they should most definately be entitled to marriage and adoption (I'd think anti-abortionist activists would be eager to find more adoptees in the first place, heh).
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 3rd April 2003
Here's more food for thought, it's from a teenage male who's recently accepted himself for being gay:
"There are two types of gays out there. Those born gay, and those who decide to be gay through experimentation. I can say I was born gay, I've known for awhile that I've been gay. It's just something you know and its not a choice. Have I had sex with another guy? No, well unless you count oral then thats a whole different story that I won't go into now. Its just the way it works. I mean its not like I have a choice in the matter. Do you know how easier it would be if I was straight? I mean I wouldn't put myself through all the bullshit and opinions that other people have of homesexuality if it was a choice. However, the experimentation one is more like a choice. Usually it is based on some curiosity."
Someone asked him "This is new... when did this start?"
He said, "Pretty much realized it since I was twelve. I just had to come to terms with it and accept it. Denial I guess." I don't know how old he is exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's around 17 or 18. But it's interesting that such a thing manifested when he was so young, no? It showed up right around when sexual thoughts and hormones typically show up for boys, that preadolescence stage.
http://project-reality.net/prbb/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=649&st=0
It's easy to tell someone, "Oh, you're just being a baby. You could do it, you just don't want to so you can make it harder for yourself and have an excuse in failure and special priviledges." But you can bet it's much, much different in the eyes of a gay person...
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 3rd April 2003
Very good points Sacred Jellybean... I fail to understand how anyone who has met gays or lesbians, talked to homosexuals people, or read much about the subjects you discuss could continue to think that at any point in this they make a "choice"...
Genetics or some kind of thing in upbringing? I imagine that upbringing would affect that second "try it out" category quite significantly, but for the majority for who it is just a fact they eventually learn, it'd have no effect at all...
Alll I really have to say is, EdenMaster, its kind of odd for someone who has already chosen sides to suddenly claim you can be impartial... which is denied in the very same post! Maybe you don't believe it to the extent Weltall and N_A do, but you're clearly on that side...
Quote:Sure, I'd be a bit uncomfortable if I got stuck in an elevator with a gay man, but wouldn't we all?
I think that shows your opinion pretty well... and it doesn't include much real 'impartiality'...
Oh, and both sides have stated their cases quite well already... all we can do now is keep repeating similar arguments in the impossible attempt to try to fail to change anyone's minds...
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 3rd April 2003
Quote:Oh, and both sides have stated their cases quite well already... all we can do now is keep repeating similar arguments in the impossible attempt to try to fail to change anyone's minds...
We're attempting to fail at changing peoples' minds? Does that mean we're attempting against succeeding, which would be changing each others' minds? :)
EdenMaster may have shown that he has a little discomfort with being alone with a homosexual in an enclosed space, but that's irrelevant as to whether or not he thinks it's a choice. Unless, in a way, he's agreeing with us, that homosexuals are sociopaths incapable of acting against their whims. I don't think he was insinuating that, though.
This whole debate IS whether or not homosexuality is a choice, right?
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 3rd April 2003
Well, its between that and what he said in his earlier post (that it is a choice) that really makes me doubt him... :)
Oh, and what I mean, as I'm sure you know, is that we have no expectation of actually changing anyone's mind because they are too set in their ways... but argue anyway.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 3rd April 2003
I believe I'm being a tad bit misunderstood. I don't believe gays should be repressed or harmed in any way for their activities, I simply think that their sex lives should be kept private... and I think the same thing should apply to straight people, bisexuals, fecalfeliacs, bestials, whatever you want to stick or get stuck with. What goes on in your bedroom should be your business and yours alone, or at most the business of people you confide in. When you make your sex life public, no matter what you choose to have sex with, you're inviting trouble of all sorts. If no one knows a person is gay, that person can't be discriminated against, except by people who need no reason to. That isn't repression or supression, that's simply keeping personal business personal. What is wrong with wanting that?
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 3rd April 2003
The fact that your idea of "private" is "keeping who (or in this case which gender) you like hidden from everyone", maybe?
And that you think that if it does "slip out", "they get what they deserve"?
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 4th April 2003
Quote:That isn't repression or supression, that's simply keeping personal business personal. What is wrong with wanting that?
There's nothing wrong with that. But there's a difference between being approached by two gay guys and given a 5 minute lecture on the male 69 and simply seeing a homosexual couple on a date, or kiss, both of which you seem to be against. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Homosexuals should be allowed marriage, as well. Now, I personally see marriage as a silly reason to abstain from sex and use to justify love, monogamy, and devotion. There are, however, legal benefits to marriage, such as tax cuts, the right to visit the other if s/he is in the hospital, etc, that homosexuals should not be left out on. This, in actuality, is a form of repression of gays, which you say you're against.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 4th April 2003
No, no... because of the bible marriage is a special thing just for two heterosexual people, of course...
And remember. If those gay people really wanted those benefits, they'd just wise up and decide to be straight again!
This is sooo gay - Sacred Jellybean - 4th April 2003
Silly me... must've been listening to too much George Carlin and Bill Hicks. Damn brainwashing liberal comedians...
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 4th April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The fact that your idea of "private" is "keeping who (or in this case which gender) you like hidden from everyone", maybe?
And that you think that if it does "slip out", "they get what they deserve"?
My idea of private is that EVERYONE'S sex lives are unknown to me, unless they are friends, family or confidantes. And if they do make their sex live known, regardless of their sexual orientation, then yes, they deserve whatever happens to them. Making your sex life public is a choice too, and all choices have consequences.
Quote: There's nothing wrong with that. But there's a difference between being approached by two gay guys and given a 5 minute lecture on the male 69 and simply seeing a homosexual couple on a date, or kiss, both of which you seem to be against. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Homosexuals should be allowed marriage, as well. Now, I personally see marriage as a silly reason to abstain from sex and use to justify love, monogamy, and devotion. There are, however, legal benefits to marriage, such as tax cuts, the right to visit the other if s/he is in the hospital, etc, that homosexuals should not be left out on. This, in actuality, is a form of repression of gays, which you say you're against.
I'm against homosexual acts, yes, but even merely seeing gays kissing in public doesn't bother me a whole lot, unless they're making it a public act, ie they're doing it to draw attention to themselves. But I don't believe homosexuals deserve the right to marriage, and maybe it is a form of discrimination, but you know what? Life's not fair sometimes. Marriage, to those who actually value social customs, is an important part of the fabric of society, and family health in many ways, because it involves members of both sexes, and gay families will produce gay children, because any child who grows up with two daddies or two mommies is going to think it's acceptable to emulate them. And then we can say bye-bye to any hope of a moral society and to a social system that has perservered nicely for six thousand years and hello to even more widespread disease.
Why should gays get marriage benefits? Not everyone automatically benefits from anyone else's benefits anyway. Men don't get paternity leave to help raise children, isn't that inherently unfair too?
By the way, I'm still waiting on that scientific proof. Something really mind-bending can change my opinions. I saw an article on alternatives to the death penalty that changed my opinion on it and set me in opposition to it.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 4th April 2003
Quote:I'm against homosexual acts, yes, but even merely seeing gays kissing in public doesn't bother me a whole lot, unless they're making it a public act, ie they're doing it to draw attention to themselves. But I don't believe homosexuals deserve the right to marriage, and maybe it is a form of discrimination, but you know what? Life's not fair sometimes. Marriage, to those who actually value social customs, is an important part of the fabric of society, and family health in many ways, because it involves members of both sexes, and gay families will produce gay children, because any child who grows up with two daddies or two mommies is going to think it's acceptable to emulate them. And then we can say bye-bye to any hope of a moral society and to a social system that has perservered nicely for six thousand years and hello to even more widespread disease.
Oh, of course... after you ignore how that not a word you say here has any backing in anything resembling sense... I mean... it just isn't true that homosexual parents have homosexual children. Simple as that.
As for the "moral decay", I think we've established pretty well that that is only a problem to the group you are a part of -- the religous right...
Quote:Why should gays get marriage benefits? Not everyone automatically benefits from anyone else's benefits anyway. Men don't get paternity leave to help raise children, isn't that inherently unfair too?
Read: Because i dislike them they should be persecuted. Same argument the racists used in the sixties.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 4th April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, of course... after you ignore how that not a word you say here has any backing in anything resembling sense... I mean... it just isn't true that homosexual parents have homosexual children. Simple as that.
As for the "moral decay", I think we've established pretty well that that is only a problem to the group you are a part of -- the religous right...
Wait, if homosexuality is genetic, then children of gays should most definitely not be able to control their dormant homosexuality that they got from at least one of their parents, right? Saying what you just said flies in the face of everything you've said prior.
And perhaps moral decay is a problem only to those on the right. The left doesn't view it as a problem, they in fact encourage moral decay, because the people who squalor in that decay always vote liberal. The rest of us who do view it as a problem do so because the fact that morals are continuously eroding is an obvious fact, and an obvious result of liberal acts, not the least of which being the welfare state, the abolishment of religion, the liberal advocation of abortion, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, underage sex, drug use, and racism.
Quote:Read: Because i dislike them they should be persecuted. Same argument the racists used in the sixties.
And the same argument you used to explain why rich people deserve to be taxed unfairly! Because you dislike the fact that they're rich and others aren't! Double standards are a bitch, huh?
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 4th April 2003
Quote:And the same argument you used to explain why rich people deserve to be taxed unfairly! Because you dislike the fact that they're rich and others aren't! Double standards are a bitch, huh?
Um, no. That is because they are richer, they should be giving a bigger part of their income back... it has nothing to do with disliking anyone... its about how people should all give what they can afford to reasonably give -- and for rich people that percent is a lot higher than for poor...
Quote:Wait, if homosexuality is genetic, then children of gays should most definitely not be able to control their dormant homosexuality that they got from at least one of their parents, right? Saying what you just said flies in the face of everything you've said prior.
Just because both parents are something it does NOT gaurantee that the child is.
Especially in this case where, if you have forgotten, those aren't the two people who the genetic material came from!
Quote:And perhaps moral decay is a problem only to those on the right. The left doesn't view it as a problem, they in fact encourage moral decay, because the people who squalor in that decay always vote liberal. The rest of us who do view it as a problem do so because the fact that morals are continuously eroding is an obvious fact, and an obvious result of liberal acts, not the least of which being the welfare state, the abolishment of religion, the liberal advocation of abortion, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, underage sex, drug use, and racism.
Only someone like you would say something so silly... only you see it as a problem because only to your eyes is any decay happening, and not to the eyes of anyone else! Those things you mention all together... um, liberals don't support all of those in some blanket thing as I'm sure you know... I mean, abortion, homosexuality... those are problems which are only issues because of intractable people like you who will never see the right of the arguments... as for the rest? Real social problems... which neither side is able to solve (except for the racism thing... which in many cases is supported by conservatives who sure don't hide their racism too well (see: Trent Lott and all those like him)...)...
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 4th April 2003
Weltall, I believe you made a statement like, "Well, because you can't convince me, I win."
To be honest, nothing you have said has convinced the opposition, so does that mean that they win as well? I see this more as a stalemate than anything.
I have come to a state where I believe I am a tolerant person. But as a person that champions tolerance, I must be tolerant of people that disagree with me. I must be willing to accept that some people are not tolerant of my opinion, even if I am tolerant of their opinion. However, I know that the discussion is going nowhere if the person believes that my opinion is inherently inferior.
I wonder how much of a choice sexual orientation really is. If it is purely a choice, did everyone here make the choice to be heterosexual? Did Weltall say to himself, "Here are the pros and cons of the situaton: if I'm gay, I'll live a life that will be shunned by society. If I'm straight, I'll better society and bring about more human beings. I've made the decision. I will be attracted to females."
I think we can all agree that the decision, if one exists, is not at this level of cognition. The process to choose sexual orientation is more subconscious than, for example, the choice of ice cream flavor.
However, for reasons brought up before, it is quite clear that sexual orientation is not at the opposite end of the spectrum. Experience in life plays a role in the decision process. Sexual orientation is not at the level of cognition as skin color (that is to say 0 cognition).
So we are left with the conclusion that this decision is somewhere between 0% and 100% on the cognition scale, where 0 is completely genetic, and 100% is conscious on the level of daily decisions (ice cream flavor, what to eat, business decisions, etc.).
Personally, I find the whole discussion of control in decisions moot. The government has decided that descrimination in public institutions may not occur based upon things that people have absolutely no control over, including skin color and gender (although this type of descrimination undoubtedly continues to occur in the workplace). However, the government has also decided to ban descrimination in public institutions based upon things that people have a lot of control over, such as religion. But what is the common thread in all of these things? They are decisions, genetic, subsconsious, or conscious, that affect only (and I say "only" with caution) the individual under consideration. The private actions of a consentual adult homosexual couple do not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else, just as a person choosing to become a bhuddist does not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else. Simulataneously, this protects the right of a person to believe that homosexuals are inferior. However, if this belief inspires the person to shoot a homosexual person, the right of the victim to live is held higher than the right of the person to shoot a gun.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 4th April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Um, no. That is because they are richer, they should be giving a bigger part of their income back... it has nothing to do with disliking anyone... its about how people should all give what they can afford to reasonably give -- and for rich people that percent is a lot higher than for poor...
So what you're telling me is that it's okay to tell a person "You've worked hard to become wealthy, you possess a work ethic, a drive, and intelligence that normal people don't have, thus, your income is higher then most. Because you make more money than they do, we're going to take more from you than we do from them. That's the reward for hard work and perserverence."
Taxing the wealthy isn't done to help the poor, it's the liberal minority trying to undermine the capitalist system and replace it with a stagnant failure known as socialism.
Quote:Just because both parents are something it does NOT gaurantee that the child is.
Especially in this case where, if you have forgotten, those aren't the two people who the genetic material came from!
Many gay parents who have children use their own reproductive systems in the process, either as a sperm donor to a surrogate mother, or as the recipient of donated sperm.
Quote:Only someone like you would say something so silly... only you see it as a problem because only to your eyes is any decay happening, and not to the eyes of anyone else! Those things you mention all together... um, liberals don't support all of those in some blanket thing as I'm sure you know... I mean, abortion, homosexuality... those are problems which are only issues because of intractable people like you who will never see the right of the arguments... as for the rest? Real social problems... which neither side is able to solve (except for the racism thing... which in many cases is supported by conservatives who sure don't hide their racism too well (see: Trent Lott and all those like him)...)...
Liberals have had the worse track record for racism by far in recent times, foremost in their support for Affirmative Action, which is inherently and unashamedly racist. Then there's WVA senator Robert Byrd, a card-carrying KKK member, Jim Moran, the Virginia representative who recently was disgraced after blaming the Iraq war on Jews, and the possible presidential nomination of Al Sharpton, one of the most vicious racists alive.
And I know that liberals don't see things like the destruction of the family and the murder of children as bad, but those of us with morals do.
Can't help but wonder if your liberalism is genetic?
Quote:Weltall, I believe you made a statement like, "Well, because you can't convince me, I win."
To be honest, nothing you have said has convinced the opposition, so does that mean that they win as well? I see this more as a stalemate than anything.
I know very well this isn't a debate you can 'win', but ABF made specific claims, and if he can't prove them, if the proof he states exists really does not, then he really proves he has no business participating in the discussion. It's one thing to tell me that homosexuality is genetic, it's another entirely different thing to prove it. He's said it ad nauseum, but he's yet to offer a shred of proof.
Quote: I have come to a state where I believe I am a tolerant person. But as a person that champions tolerance, I must be tolerant of people that disagree with me. I must be willing to accept that some people are not tolerant of my opinion, even if I am tolerant of their opinion. However, I know that the discussion is going nowhere if the person believes that my opinion is inherently inferior.
I wonder how much of a choice sexual orientation really is. If it is purely a choice, did everyone here make the choice to be heterosexual? Did Weltall say to himself, "Here are the pros and cons of the situaton: if I'm gay, I'll live a life that will be shunned by society. If I'm straight, I'll better society and bring about more human beings. I've made the decision. I will be attracted to females."
I think we can all agree that the decision, if one exists, is not at this level of cognition. The process to choose sexual orientation is more subconscious than, for example, the choice of ice cream flavor.
Definitely, yes. There are many choices one does not consciously make, and I believe sexual orientation is one of them. But that it is a choice is painfully clear to me. It's definitely not something you just decide one day, but it's something you consider often before you're in a position to act on it. If it were not a choice, bisexuality could not exist, as genetics are pretty rigid: If you were born gay, you could never show an interest in women at all. Yet some people do show interest in both. If it truly were genetic, you would think the ties to same sex would be too strong to break, as many genetic traits are hard, if not impossible to negate by will alone. I think that some people who might be gay choose not to because of the repercussions that come with that decision, but I never once heard of a person who was so gay to the core of their being that they failed to stop it despite trying.
Quote: However, for reasons brought up before, it is quite clear that sexual orientation is not at the opposite end of the spectrum. Experience in life plays a role in the decision process. Sexual orientation is not at the level of cognition as skin color (that is to say 0 cognition).I could believe that, but it's definitely slanted more to choice. I just believe that most people who are gay give it serious consideration, some decide to go ahead and some do not. If it were more genetic than not, the simple fact is that more people would be gay, because there would be no stopping it. Some people do, and that is nearly impossible if the condition is inflicted by a person's genes.
So we are left with the conclusion that this decision is somewhere between 0% and 100% on the cognition scale, where 0 is completely genetic, and 100% is conscious on the level of daily decisions (ice cream flavor, what to eat, business decisions, etc.).
Quote: Personally, I find the whole discussion of control in decisions moot. The government has decided that descrimination in public institutions may not occur based upon things that people have absolutely no control over, including skin color and gender (although this type of descrimination undoubtedly continues to occur in the workplace). However, the government has also decided to ban descrimination in public institutions based upon things that people have a lot of control over, such as religion. But what is the common thread in all of these things? They are decisions, genetic, subsconsious, or conscious, that affect only (and I say "only" with caution) the individual under consideration. The private actions of a consentual adult homosexual couple do not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else, just as a person choosing to become a bhuddist does not infringe upon the protected rights of anyone else. Simulataneously, this protects the right of a person to believe that homosexuals are inferior. However, if this belief inspires the person to shoot a homosexual person, the right of the victim to live is held higher than the right of the person to shoot a gun.
Again, I agree. And I'm not against people wanting to be gay, because as I stated earlier, what goes on in a person's bedroom is their business and no one elses. The problem I have is the possibility that the lifestyle becomes popularlized and common, because the fact that the gay lifestyle has special consequences cannot be denied, and there is my personal revusion of it. Then there are the people lobbying for gay people to get special rights, and I don't believe a choice warrants a special bonus. Gay people are still people as much as anyone, I'm the last one to say otherwise, but what it comes down to is that publicizing your sex life, gay or straight, usually leads to bad things and is a stupid thing to do. And I do not believe people have the right to be protected from their own stupidity.
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 4th April 2003
Look. You say I have no proof. Well, why should I go look for proof when other people (big guy, sacred jellybean) have offered more than enough already? No, "proof" isn't the problem. Your mindset is, because it excludes the possibility of anything other than your opinions having any truth... and then tries to force everyone else to follow your twisted morals...
Quote:So what you're telling me is that it's okay to tell a person "You've worked hard to become wealthy, you possess a work ethic, a drive, and intelligence that normal people don't have, thus, your income is higher then most. Because you make more money than they do, we're going to take more from you than we do from them. That's the reward for hard work and perserverence."
Taxing the wealthy isn't done to help the poor, it's the liberal minority trying to undermine the capitalist system and replace it with a stagnant failure known as socialism.
You make more money, so you give a larger percent of your money... you make less, so you give less... it is just the most fair thing to do. Rich people can afford to give more so they should, They shouldn't be allowed to get out of paying their fair share of the taxes just because they are rich... like "flat taxes" or whatever do.
Quote:Many gay parents who have children use their own reproductive systems in the process, either as a sperm donor to a surrogate mother, or as the recipient of donated sperm.
But that's just one parent... :bang:
Quote:Liberals have had the worse track record for racism by far in recent times, foremost in their support for Affirmative Action, which is inherently and unashamedly racist. Then there's WVA senator Robert Byrd, a card-carrying KKK member, Jim Moran, the Virginia representative who recently was disgraced after blaming the Iraq war on Jews, and the possible presidential nomination of Al Sharpton, one of the most vicious racists alive.
Sure some liberals are racist... but a far, far higher percentage of conservatives are racist. You really can't deny that...
Quote:Definitely, yes. There are many choices one does not consciously make, and I believe sexual orientation is one of them. But that it is a choice is painfully clear to me. It's definitely not something you just decide one day, but it's something you consider often before you're in a position to act on it. If it were not a choice, bisexuality could not exist, as genetics are pretty rigid: If you were born gay, you could never show an interest in women at all. Yet some people do show interest in both. If it truly were genetic, you would think the ties to same sex would be too strong to break, as many genetic traits are hard, if not impossible to negate by will alone. I think that some people who might be gay choose not to because of the repercussions that come with that decision, but I never once heard of a person who was so gay to the core of their being that they failed to stop it despite trying.
Not a word of that makes a shred of sense... given how we've already shown how that is just false several times...
Quote:I could believe that, but it's definitely slanted more to choice. I just believe that most people who are gay give it serious consideration, some decide to go ahead and some do not. If it were more genetic than not, the simple fact is that more people would be gay, because there would be no stopping it. Some people do, and that is nearly impossible if the condition is inflicted by a person's genes.
But for almost all gay people that is exactly how it is! They can't "stop it"!
Quote:Again, I agree. And I'm not against people wanting to be gay, because as I stated earlier, what goes on in a person's bedroom is their business and no one elses. The problem I have is the possibility that the lifestyle becomes popularlized and common, because the fact that the gay lifestyle has special consequences cannot be denied, and there is my personal revusion of it. Then there are the people lobbying for gay people to get special rights, and I don't believe a choice warrants a special bonus. Gay people are still people as much as anyone, I'm the last one to say otherwise, but what it comes down to is that publicizing your sex life, gay or straight, usually leads to bad things and is a stupid thing to do. And I do not believe people have the right to be protected from their own stupidity.
That is just dumb. I mean, "let them do whatever but if I learn about it let me do any bad thing I want (within some limits) them for being evil people"? That isn't tolerance! That's persecution! I don't see how you can support persecuting anyone... even if it was a choice, that doesn't make it anywhere near OK to let them be persecuted for it... yet you think it should stay legal for them to be persecuted (fired, evicted, etc) just if people find out their sexuality. That is not exactly "tolerant" or "not against people being gay".
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 4th April 2003
Some people I know are gay are for different reasons.A Girl I know is a lezbean as she is afraid of men because her Father abused her as did her boy freinds in the past, She just felt safer with other women.
I find myself very sympathetic to her case.
But not old men who look at nude young boys younger then 18 in pornagraphy, some as young as 5 years old.As their is a perve in canada who has fought for his right to posses child pornagraphy, He claimes he is being persecuted because he is gay.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 4th April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Look. You say I have no proof. Well, why should I go look for proof when other people (big guy, sacred jellybean) have offered more than enough already? No, "proof" isn't the problem. Your mindset is, because it excludes the possibility of anything other than your opinions having any truth... and then tries to force everyone else to follow your twisted morals...
And the pot calls the kettle black. You're doing exactly what I'm doing, sans proving your point, you're just on the opposite side of the opinion spectrum. Don't get holy on me.
Quote:You make more money, so you give a larger percent of your money... you make less, so you give less... it is just the most fair thing to do. Rich people can afford to give more so they should, They shouldn't be allowed to get out of paying their fair share of the taxes just because they are rich... like "flat taxes" or whatever do.
No, it's not the most fair to do. A flat tax means you pay directly based on the money you earn. It's fair to everyone. Punishing someone because they've worked hard enough to become wealthy is as far from fair as you can get. It's almost giving poor people an incentive to not try to become rich.
Quote:But that's just one parent... :bang:And? The genes don't pass on because only one parent carries them? You really don't know shit about genetics.
Quote:Sure some liberals are racist... but a far, far higher percentage of conservatives are racist. You really can't deny that...Sure I can. Who were two of the most famous racists in the civil rights period? Orville Faubus and George Wallace, figures of a Jim Crow south. Both Democrats. Who set up Japanese internment camps in the second world war? A liberal president. Which party advocates racism against white men today in the form of Affirmative Action? Democrats. Which party has a KKK member in the Senate? The democratic party. Who was Trent Lott referring to in the remark that brought him down? Strom Thurmond, a Democrat at the time when he advocated segregation.
Quote:Not a word of that makes a shred of sense... given how we've already shown how that is just false several times...
You haven't shown anything, which is what I've been badgering you for. You've just said "Weltall's wrong", but you've repeatedly failed to substantiate how and why. It just 'is'.
Quote:But for almost all gay people that is exactly how it is! They can't "stop it"!
If it were genetic, NO ONE could be able to stop it! Yet some do! Those that don't stop it usually don't WANT to stop it.
Quote:That is just dumb. I mean, "let them do whatever but if I learn about it let me do any bad thing I want (within some limits) them for being evil people"? That isn't tolerance! That's persecution! I don't see how you can support persecuting anyone... even if it was a choice, that doesn't make it anywhere near OK to let them be persecuted for it... yet you think it should stay legal for them to be persecuted (fired, evicted, etc) just if people find out their sexuality. That is not exactly "tolerant" or "not against people being gay".
Man, oh man, you just keep putting words in my mouth left and right! I never said any of that! This is borderline slander here, pal. I'm NOT in favor of persecution, and I don't think anyone should be allowed to harm anyone for any reason so stupid. But I also don't think you should be protected for your choices. To make an example, drug users are often denied jobs. One could make the argument that it's wrong to discriminate against drug users because they are addicted and cannot stop... but it was their choice to start in the first place (except in the very rare cases of people born addicted because their mother is a drug user, and that addiction not quelled by adulthood). If that person stops using drugs, they can get any job they are qualified for. Yes, it is hard to stop, but not impossible. Now I realize sexuality isn't exactly the same, but the point is, you cannot be protected from making choices, and if someone doesn't want to hire you because you're openly gay, they have that right. If you're not flagrant about it, they'll never know, and it will never be a freaking issue! As it stands now, if you are fired for being gay, you can sue their asses off anyway, and many employers enact their own policies disregarding sexual preference. It's wrong to fire someone for being gay, and only a real asshole would do that, but it's up to that gay individual not to make their sexuality an issue at work, as sexuality should NEVER be an issue at work.
Besides, when you get right down to it, an employer can fire you for whatever they want, and if they want to fire you because they don't like gays, they can get around any law with sickening easy anyway, as outside of race/creed/age/religion, employers can terminate you at will, and when they want to fire you, they will use the slightest screwup to justify it. So would it make you feel better for there to be a law, only to have the extreme few who would break it do so anyway? Making a law for this purpose is a nice gesture, but useless ultimately, as most employers already practice it, or would find ways around it, and it would embolden the gay activists to push for even more preferential treatment, just as minority advocates do today.
This is sooo gay - alien space marine - 4th April 2003
This is indeed a very sticky issue, Look at Polygamy , some churces outlaw it some imbrace it, But can Polygamist go demand some kind law forcing Churces and religious groups to accept Polygamy? no!
This is sooo gay - A Black Falcon - 4th April 2003
Quote:And the pot calls the kettle black. You're doing exactly what I'm doing, sans proving your point, you're just on the opposite side of the opinion spectrum. Don't get holy on me.
No I'm not. I just see no reason to go find proof of my own when Sacred Jellybean and big guy provided more than enough.
Quote:No, it's not the most fair to do. A flat tax means you pay directly based on the money you earn. It's fair to everyone. Punishing someone because they've worked hard enough to become wealthy is as far from fair as you can get. It's almost giving poor people an incentive to not try to become rich.
It isn't fair to let rich people pay small amounts of tax because they are rich. The fact that they are rich means they have more money... more money to give in taxes. Poor people do not have that money... it just isn't fair to them to expect them to give anywhere near the same amount of money in taxes... and it isn't fair to the rest of us to let rich people off so easily...
Quote:And? The genes don't pass on because only one parent carries them? You really don't know shit about genetics.
The point was that there is a second, probably heterosexual person who gives half the genetic material...
Quote:Sure I can. Who were two of the most famous racists in the civil rights period? Orville Faubus and George Wallace, figures of a Jim Crow south. Both Democrats. Who set up Japanese internment camps in the second world war? A liberal president. Which party advocates racism against white men today in the form of Affirmative Action? Democrats. Which party has a KKK member in the Senate? The democratic party. Who was Trent Lott referring to in the remark that brought him down? Strom Thurmond, a Democrat at the time when he advocated segregation.
I am talking about now, not the past. And now Democrats are (or almost all of them anyway) not racist... while plenty of republicans are. I very, very much doubt that there aren't a whole lot of Republican legislators who behind closed doors completely agreed with Lott...
Quote:If it were genetic, NO ONE could be able to stop it! Yet some do! Those that don't stop it usually don't WANT to stop it.
As I said before, almost no one can stop it... and anyone who could wasn't genetically homosexual in the first place. There aren't many people like that out there.
Quote:Man, oh man, you just keep putting words in my mouth left and right! I never said any of that! This is borderline slander here, pal. I'm NOT in favor of persecution, and I don't think anyone should be allowed to harm anyone for any reason so stupid. But I also don't think you should be protected for your choices. To make an example, drug users are often denied jobs. One could make the argument that it's wrong to discriminate against drug users because they are addicted and cannot stop... but it was their choice to start in the first place (except in the very rare cases of people born addicted because their mother is a drug user, and that addiction not quelled by adulthood). If that person stops using drugs, they can get any job they are qualified for. Yes, it is hard to stop, but not impossible. Now I realize sexuality isn't exactly the same, but the point is, you cannot be protected from making choices, and if someone doesn't want to hire you because you're openly gay, they have that right. If you're not flagrant about it, they'll never know, and it will never be a freaking issue! As it stands now, if you are fired for being gay, you can sue their asses off anyway, and many employers enact their own policies disregarding sexual preference. It's wrong to fire someone for being gay, and only a real asshole would do that, but it's up to that gay individual not to make their sexuality an issue at work, as sexuality should NEVER be an issue at work.
Besides, when you get right down to it, an employer can fire you for whatever they want, and if they want to fire you because they don't like gays, they can get around any law with sickening easy anyway, as outside of race/creed/age/religion, employers can terminate you at will, and when they want to fire you, they will use the slightest screwup to justify it. So would it make you feel better for there to be a law, only to have the extreme few who would break it do so anyway? Making a law for this purpose is a nice gesture, but useless ultimately, as most employers already practice it, or would find ways around it, and it would embolden the gay activists to push for even more preferential treatment, just as minority advocates do today.
You keep saying I'm not reflecting your opinions... but to me it sure seems like I am after I read your posts. "I don't favor persecution! I just think that persecution is perfectly fine!"
You keep calling it a choice. It makes absolutely no sense at all... I think that there has been plenty of proof to show that it is not from our side of the argument. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that shows your refusal to consider that the other side could even begin to have any valid points.
Drug users? How many criminal groups will you compare homosexuals to? Its very insulting... Drug users can go into rehab and try to solve their problems... homosexuals can pretend to surpress their feelings, but they can't do it fully... you can't control biology that fully...
This is sooo gay - Nintendarse - 4th April 2003
I don't really understand the "special treatment" argument.
For legal grounding, look here: Romer v. Evans
If you want to see the argument that won in the Supreme Court of the United States, look here
Of note: this argument was put forth by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assocation.
Your drug analogy doesn't work because employment decisions are made based upon the individual's ability to be productive. An employer MAY judge an applicant's decisions that affect their working ability or the working ability of others, but they are not allowed to judge an applicant's decisions that do not affect the workplace. Drugs greatly hinder one's ability to be productive. Sexual orientation does not. I'd say that religion and sexual orientation have the same amount of effect upon productivity. If an employer doesn't want to hire you because you're openly Jewish, they do not have that right. And just as a Jewish person is within his right to wear clothing that shows his religion, it should not be outside a homosexual's rights to wear a small pin or other non-intrusive accessory.
To me, denial of "special treatment" looks more like denial of "equal treatment."
A note on US history: The Democratic party was, for several decades, the conservative party. Clearly, during the reconstruction period after the civil war, the Republican party was amazingly liberal. For many decades, the conservative south was dominated by Democrats. The switch in party alignment began with FDR, but gradually (and inconsistently) progressed until we have the situation of today. While today's Democratic party is commonly considered the liberal party, such was not the case throughout United States history. Strom Thurmond, while a Democrat, was undoubtedly conservative. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that Strom Thurmond split from the Democratic party because he fundamentally disagreed with its liberal-moving policies.
EDIT: Weltall, why do you talk about the people that question their sexuality as a foreign people that does not include yourself? If it is purely conscious choice, you would have already made the decision, and would include yourself in that pool. Despite this wrinkle of curiousity, I agree that a gay gene would quickly work its way out of the population. However, just because it is not genetic does not mean that it is not biological. Perhaps it is hormonal? Perhaps it is subconscious? Perhaps it is a combination of hormones, subconscious, life experience, and conscious? The latter makes the most sense to me, as (IMO) practically all of life's decisions include these factors in varying degees.
This is sooo gay - N-Man - 4th April 2003
Jesus Christ people, what is the obsession with wanting to control what other people do with their genitalia? I'm not even going to try to read those incredibly long pages of scientific study, it doesn't matter whether being homosexual is genetic or not. They're not hurting anyone. They disgust you and you want them off the streets? Tough. Your face disgusts me, yet you don't see me asking for it to be banned.
This is sooo gay - Weltall - 4th April 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No I'm not. I just see no reason to go find proof of my own when Sacred Jellybean and big guy provided more than enough.
They did not offer the proof both Dark Jaguar and I demanded of you. Go read that first page again. You claim that there is scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, not one of you proved that at all. Especially you, at least they tried.
Quote:It isn't fair to let rich people pay small amounts of tax because they are rich. The fact that they are rich means they have more money... more money to give in taxes. Poor people do not have that money... it just isn't fair to them to expect them to give anywhere near the same amount of money in taxes... and it isn't fair to the rest of us to let rich people off so easily...You are so dense it makes me want to scream. I'm not doing the math for you again, the last time I did it showed that under a flat tax rich people paid a decisively higher percentage of federal tax, but fairness isn't what you want. You want advantages for the poor, which is fine in theory, but all it does is tell them that there is no reason to try and better yourself because you're getting rewarded for remaining poor. How does THAT help the poor? In the short term? Maybe. In the long run? Definitely not. And, in the process, you hurt those who DO show incentive, which only makes the poor want to stay poor even more.
Quote:The point was that there is a second, probably heterosexual person who gives half the genetic material...And that will magically negate any gay gene somehow? Keep going, professor, this is getting hilarious :)
Quote:I am talking about now, not the past. And now Democrats are (or almost all of them anyway) not racist... while plenty of republicans are. I very, very much doubt that there aren't a whole lot of Republican legislators who behind closed doors completely agreed with Lott...
The biggest, most important factor is still very liberal, and that's affirmative action, the reverse of Jim Crow.
Quote:As I said before, almost no one can stop it... and anyone who could wasn't genetically homosexual in the first place. There aren't many people like that out there.No one is genetically homosexual. The idea is preposterous.
Quote:You keep saying I'm not reflecting your opinions... but to me it sure seems like I am after I read your posts. "I don't favor persecution! I just think that persecution is perfectly fine!"
I'm not going to bother again. I've said what I mean, and you're obviously not reading it.
Quote:You keep calling it a choice. It makes absolutely no sense at all... I think that there has been plenty of proof to show that it is not from our side of the argument. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that shows your refusal to consider that the other side could even begin to have any valid points.
I refuse to consider it because it is scientifically invalid, and I've offered lots of proof stating just how invalid it is, the unlikelihood and near impossibility of it. You all have offered no proof at all. Nothing. Opinions? Yeah. Proof? Certainly not. But I will.
http://www.queerbychoice.com/index.html
This is a site, run by gay people, debunking the myth that genetics are the cause of their sexual preference. Within you'll find dozens of articles, some scientific, some not, that address the topic. Doing a search for "gay gene" will display quite a number of articles addressing this topic as well, and the more recent ones definitely do not favor the biology slant. Over 90% of the human genome has been mapped, and no gay gene has been found yet. It had been thought there was one, but now it appears that it is in fact not.
Quote:Drug users? How many criminal groups will you compare homosexuals to? Its very insulting... Drug users can go into rehab and try to solve their problems... homosexuals can pretend to surpress their feelings, but they can't do it fully... you can't control biology that fully...
Are you inferring all drug users are criminal? There are many, many drugs that are completely legal and are capable of causing severe addictions, such as alcohol. Don't be so dense.