Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on November 21, 2004, 10:56:03 pm
-
This is because I couldn't think of any words for gay (homo, fairy etc) that rythmes with either Alexander, Greek or Great. So, there you go...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20041119/en_nm/greece_alexander_dc
-
wasn't he though?
-
shhh, they might hear you.
and yes, he was, as were most of his soldiers.
-
It was socially acceptable then. And as much as I'd like to ask "Did civilization fall to ruins?" I know there are some people who will say yes. :doubt:
-
You know, I could make a sarcastic comment right about now, but I won't.
On a side note, wasn't it theorized that he had an affair with one of his generals or something?
-
And then proceeded to kill him with a spear, yes. Or something like that, I don't exactly remember.
-
They mention his death as "mysterious." Didn't he just get completely trashed and die of alcohol poisoning? :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And then proceeded to kill him with a spear, yes. Or something like that, I don't exactly remember.
"Spear". Hah. :lol:
-
The funny bit is he's depicted as Bisexual, and the first comment from the Greek authorities is 'We have nothing against Gay's'.
Oooops showed your hand a little early there I think ;)
I guess he can rape and pillage his way across the continent just fine as long as he doesn't have 'impure' thoughts about men ;)
-
Yet more evidence that the ancient Greeks were more sophisticated than their modern day counterparts
-
Greeks had a habit of celebrating victory with orgies....
Didn't anyone stop to think where, in the middle of a Battlezone, 12,000 warriors are going to find an equivalent number of female partners?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Greeks had a habit of celebrating victory with orgies....
Didn't anyone stop to think where, in the middle of a Battlezone, 12,000 warriors are going to find an equivalent number of female partners?
I hope they weren't into necrophilia, then.
("pile on in lads, this ones got extra holes in him")
-
:lol:
Well, mythology includes a pregnancy by a Ram and a Shower of Gold, so it was obviously fun, fun, fun back in those days ;)
-
Gays are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
-
There was a time when the 'sick' ones were the ones who persecuted minority groups that didn't affect them....
Wonder what happened those times?
-
Welcome to the 21st century. Like the 19th, but with mass media.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Gays are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
In the eye of the nameless TRUE GOD, heterosexuals are disgusting and suffer from a mental/hormonal disorder.
However, since the followers of the TRUE GOD all died since they never bred... well...
Regardless... REPENT YOU... YOU... BREEDER!
-
Ah well, let's keep this particular thread for bashing Hyprocritical, 'Europe is Free, America Isn't, but just don't mention the gays!' lawyers shall we ;)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Gays are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
Buh?
Feel sorry for heterosexuals too? What about Bis? If it is a disorder as you state at the start of your post, then how can you be OK with people shunning them?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Gays are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
:wtf:
It's a difference, yes, but not a disorder. You're saying homosexuality is the same as Down's Syndrome or some other condition. And why the hell would gay people need "professional help"? It's not a mental illness, or a lifestyle choice. You either are, or you aren't. There's not a thing you can do about it (well, you could try to suppress your feelings and hide it, but you wouldn't be happy). People don't wake up one day and go "I know, I'm going to only have sex with other men from now on. That'll be t3h wicked!" ...
Your comment smacks of either ignorance or intolerance, and I find it rather offensive. I suggest you go and read some books....
As for the Alexander thing, those lawyers should be told to **** off and grow up...
-
I think what makes me laugh most is that, in this respect, Hollywood cannot win. If they create historically innacurate movies (Pearl Harbor etc) they get slammed for it. If, however, they add historical accuracy to the films.....they still get slammed.
Thing is, this is actually quite a bold move on Oliver Stones part, considering the childish attitude that sections of American society have regarding the issue (see above).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I think what makes me laugh most is that, in this respect, Hollywood cannot win. If they create historically innacurate movies (Pearl Harbor etc) they get slammed for it. If, however, they add historical accuracy to the films.....they still get slammed.
Thing is, this is actually quite a bold move on Oliver Stones part, considering the childish attitude that sections of American society have regarding the issue (see above).
Very true. Respect to the man. :yes: At least they're not getting slammed by other Americans (at least in public). That's possibly a good sign. Though some media loonies will probably go into hysterics about it... :doubt:
-
Chirstians are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
-
and, eh, just give it time...
-
:lol:
-
Thing is, if they had made Troy, for example, as historically accurate it would have never got a certificate. Most of the combatents were under 17 and Helen herself was reckoned on being 13-14 when the siege started.
This, however, at the time was perfectly normal.
Besides, I doubt Brad would have bent over for the celebrations afterwards ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ah well, let's keep this particular thread for bashing Hyprocritical, 'Europe is Free, America Isn't, but just don't mention the gays!' lawyers shall we ;)
-
hehehehehe :D
Ok, so I got distracted :p
-
BY Clave
Feel sorry for heterosexuals too? What about Bis? If it is a disorder as you state at the start of your post, then how can you be OK with people shunning them?
Read this part again:
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
Originally posted by pyro-manic
:wtf:
It's a difference, yes, but not a disorder. You're saying homosexuality is the same as Down's Syndrome or some other condition. And why the hell would gay people need "professional help"? It's not a mental illness, or a lifestyle choice. You either are, or you aren't. There's not a thing you can do about it (well, you could try to suppress your feelings and hide it, but you wouldn't be happy). People don't wake up one day and go "I know, I'm going to only have sex with other men from now on. That'll be t3h wicked!" ...
Your comment smacks of either ignorance or intolerance, and I find it rather offensive. I suggest you go and read some books....
If your brain doesn't work like a normal persons brain, then it IS some kind of disorder - one way or another. Maby a bad gene, maby it's psychological - I really can't tell - but it is a desorder.
Professional help doesn't automaticly mean shrinks. And I wouldnt' give gays children for adoption. It would be just as bad as giving them to someone with Alzheimers.
I am far from ignorant and I really don't care if you find it offensive. People are waaay too touchy these days and too easily offended anyway.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Chirstians are sick people.
I don't hate them, I just feel sorry for them.
That is some sort of mental/hormonal disorder. In that case those people need our help (proffesional help)
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
How very unoriginal...Really Bob, Iexpected bettrer from you.
Anyway, you start from the wrong premise. Faith is purely a personal choice and has nothing to do with hormons or genes, thus there ca nbe no comparison.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
How very unoriginal...Really Bob, Iexpected bettrer from you.
Anyway, you start from the wrong premise. Faith is purely a personal choice and has nothing to do with hormons or genes, thus there ca nbe no comparison.
If homosexualty is by choice then - by your statement above - it's ok. If it's genetic/biological, then obviously God shoved it in the genetic code for a reason, so it must be ok as well then.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Read this part again:
If it's their own personal choice, then I'm perfectly allright with people shunning them (a bad choice...)
If your brain doesn't work like a normal persons brain, then it IS some kind of disorder - one way or another. Maby a bad gene, maby it's psychological - I really can't tell - but it is a desorder.
Professional help doesn't automaticly mean shrinks. And I wouldnt' give gays children for adoption. It would be just as bad as giving them to someone with Alzheimers.
I am far from ignorant and I really don't care if you find it offensive. People are waaay too touchy these days and too easily offended anyway.
So gay people's brains aren't normal? So they're freaks? And how can it be both a personal choice and a disorder at the same time?
What do you mean when you say "professional help" then - brainwashing? Hypnotism? And comparing being gay to having Alzheimer's disease... You do realise that that's what you said? You claim to be "far from ignorant", and yet you think that having certain sexual preferences are the same as a crippling and horribly destructive brain disease. I don't know what to say... :blah:
-
I don't feel comfortable around gays, but I don't think they're sick/mentally imbalanced/etc.
I just like my asshole the size it is.
-
You assume the wrong things....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
If homosexualty is by choice then - by your statement above - it's ok. If it's genetic/biological, then obviously God shoved it in the genetic code for a reason, so it must be ok as well then.
No, I didn't say it's OK. If it's by choice than it is a bad choice.
Don't start dragging the "It's God's faul" thing. Did it ever occur to you that he jsut started thing and them let them run by themselves - In other words, he created the universe, but doesn't interfere with it's running. A mutation or a bad gene is simply that - there's o great mistery behind it.
God gave us the free will, with everything that comes in that package - if we **** up, we're responsable - he won't be cleaning up after us. Thus, by giving us free will, he allso gave us the posibility to do wrong, to do bad things. Does that mean he approves of them? No.
So gay people's brains aren't normal? So they're freaks? And how can it be both a personal choice and a disorder at the same time?
What do you mean when you say "professional help" then - brainwashing? Hypnotism? And comparing being gay to having Alzheimer's disease... You do realise that that's what you said? You claim to be "far from ignorant", and yet you think that having certain sexual preferences are the same as a crippling and horribly destructive brain disease. I don't know what to say...
There is nothing to say.
And I never say it is both. I said that it's either one or the other (probably the second).
Yes, I compare being gay with a desease, since it resembles it in every way. (and by all account it IS some disroder. Can you prove me wrong?)There are some scientist that have siad they found a gene that's responsable for it. I just hope they find a treatment.
-
Shame no one's willing to put money into finding the gene responsible for religious predisposition... :p
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
No, I didn't say it's OK. If it's by choice than it is a bad choice.
Don't start dragging the "It's God's faul" thing. Did it ever occur to you that he jsut started thing and them let them run by themselves - In other words, he created the universe, but doesn't interfere with it's running. A mutation or a bad gene is simply that - there's o great mistery behind it.
God gave us the free will, with everything that comes in that package - if we **** up, we're responsable - he won't be cleaning up after us. Thus, by giving us free will, he allso gave us the posibility to do wrong, to do bad things. Does that mean he approves of them? No.
So you're saying God is playing a game with existence, allowing random genetic mutations to create 'bad' people, and then judging them upon something they have no control over?
So it'd be just as valid to send people with Downs' Syndrome to hell, because they have as much of a choice in the matter? (I'm not sure where animal homosexuality - as has been documented - would figure in the whole unnatural part of this....)
Funny, I never saw God as sadistic.
And if it's a choice, then why is it any more or less valid than the choice to believe in (a/many) God/s?
If I say you're wrong & need 'reducation', simply because someone preached to me you were, should you accept it? Because I have as much evidence as you have in claiming that homosexuality requires Clockwork Orange-esque 'treatment'. Maybe you'd like to break out the nipple clamps on Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Sikhs while your at it?
-
originally posted by styxx:Shame no one's willing to put money into finding the gene responsible for religious predisposition...
Heheheh -amen to that! :D
Trash: Why do you want to find a "cure"? What problems does being gay cause? It's not detrimental to a person's health, it doesn't put them at any physical or mental disadvantage, it doesn't do any damage to them at all. So what is there to "cure"? If homosexuality is a disease to be cured through gene therapy, then so is ginger hair. So is dark skin. So are blue eyes. So is every single human trait and characteristic.
I just don't understand this at all. Why are you so against gay people? Are you threatened by them? Are you so insecure about your own sexuality that you feel you have to prove yourself by bashing them? I really am trying to see the issue from your point of view, but it makes no sense to me. Can you explain it to me?
-
Apparently, being homophobic is a common way of hiding repressed homosexuality.
-
Heh, Trashman hates Gays, that's all it boils down to, there no justification or reason, he simply hates them.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Apparently, being homophobic is a common way of hiding repressed homosexuality.
That's just liberal mind-trickery and it's one step down from "I know you are, but what am I?".
And 'homophobic' is the wrong term. I, for one, do not fear homosexuals - I revile and despise them.
-
Even lesbians?
-
Originally posted by an0n
That's just liberal mind-trickery and it's one step down from "I know you are, but what am I?".
And 'homophobic' is the wrong term. I, for one, do not fear homosexuals - I revile and despise them.
Yeah, but you're a bitter & twisted degenerate anyways, so you hate everyone.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Shame no one's willing to put money into finding the gene responsible for religious predisposition... :p
Hey, with proper drugs you can replicate a 'religious experience'.
Originally posted by aldo_14
So you're saying God is playing a game with existence, allowing random genetic mutations to create 'bad' people, and then judging them upon something they have no control over?
So it'd be just as valid to send people with Downs' Syndrome to hell, because they have as much of a choice in the matter? (I'm not sure where animal homosexuality - as has been documented - would figure in the whole unnatural part of this....)
Funny, I never saw God as sadistic.
And equally importantly, why would a god that do something like that be deserving of veneration?
Personally, I support gays. It means less guys chasing after women. Now lesbians on the other hand...
-
Originally posted by vyper
I just like my asshole the size it is.
Did you really think I was interested in you? :o
Now, now, :D but to be serious, that lawsuit is, to say the least, ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
How very unoriginal...Really Bob, Iexpected bettrer from you.
Anyway, you start from the wrong premise. Faith is purely a personal choice and has nothing to do with hormons or genes, thus there ca nbe no comparison.
..you do realise I said the exact same thing you did, used the same logical expailation only applyed it to you.
you base all your beliefes on emotion, there may be logic built up upon it but the foundation is pure emotion.
now I want to ask you something, you said that homosexuality could be caused by a mutated gene, if you beleive this to be potentaly true why do you want to compell them to act in a manner that is against there nature and thus perpetuateing the faulty gene?
-
More importantly, you do realise that if it wasn't for genes mutating we'd all be blobs talking blobby language and typing on blobby computers because we'd have never got our slimy single-celled butts out of the ocean?
If homosexuality were because of a 'bad' or 'wrong' mutation, then they would have vanished. The fact that Homosexuality appears in generation after generation suggests that not only is it normal, but it may well, in wome way, be required that part of humanity be gay.
-
God just wants to have fu-un!
-
Has anyone else noticed that this thread is extremely [SIZE=20]GAY[/SIZE]?
o~ o~ o~ c==='8
-
Does that mean it's not allowed to merge with any other threads?
-
Not any manly threads.
-
I had sex with Jesus last night. He said that being gay is fine, so BEAT THAT.
-
I'm sure you did.
-
was he good?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
More importantly, you do realise that if it wasn't for genes mutating we'd all be blobs talking blobby language and typing on blobby computers because we'd have never got our slimy single-celled butts out of the ocean?
If homosexuality were because of a 'bad' or 'wrong' mutation, then they would have vanished. The fact that Homosexuality appears in generation after generation suggests that not only is it normal, but it may well, in wome way, be required that part of humanity be gay.
that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
-
Nope, it was the point I was trying to make :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Nope, it was the point I was trying to make :)
And a damned good point, seeing as how evolution tends to weed out the traits that are unnesessary.
Oh wait. The large majority of people who are against this are creationists, and they don't believe in evolution...
So. God made gays for a reason then... Unless you want to twist your beliefs some more to justify your hatred.
-
More importantly, you do realise that if it wasn't for genes mutating we'd all be blobs talking blobby language and typing on blobby computers because we'd have never got our slimy single-celled butts out of the ocean?
If homosexuality were because of a 'bad' or 'wrong' mutation, then they would have vanished. The fact that Homosexuality appears in generation after generation suggests that not only is it normal, but it may well, in wome way, be required that part of humanity be gay.
Not quite. Really, right now the human species as a whole isn't evolving genetically at all. The genetically weak [I have [/I]to be culled out before they can pass their genes on (i.e. have children)for evolution to work all, which hasn't happened to the human race via causes that discriminate on natural ability since we became Homo Sapiens Sapines, pretty much. Human kind has no natural predators, and natural disasters /changes don't account for much of our population's deaths either. The closest we've come is human versus human conflict, which has closed or narrowed some major genetic lines (native american).
However, despite the fact that we are not evolving does not mean that we are not mutating! Our genes are never quite passed on perfectly, we all vary from one another in some way or another, if only for the virtue that we are a mixture of our mother's and father's genes. On top of that just regular mutation (caused by raditation, genetic imperfections, whatever you'd like) will futher alter some people from others... it's just there's little consequence to it, as humans, even those with genetic flaws like people with Down's syndrome, are cared for by our species, and in some cases can even have children.
That variance is enough to allow for gays to be a genetic abnormality of the human species. The trigger for it could very well be genetic, although it's far more likely that it's a combination of multiple factors, both sociological and biological. Our species can at least tolerate that level of genetic deviation, although it in no way can require that some be gay. Evolution is an undirected process, it always follows the path of least resistance, and most importantly, people who are fully gay won't pass on their genes, as it still requires both a man and a women to create a child, not a same-sex pair.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So you're saying God is playing a game with existence, allowing random genetic mutations to create 'bad' people, and then judging them upon something they have no control over?
So it'd be just as valid to send people with Downs' Syndrome to hell, because they have as much of a choice in the matter? (I'm not sure where animal homosexuality - as has been documented - would figure in the whole unnatural part of this....)
Funny, I never saw God as sadistic.
And if it's a choice, then why is it any more or less valid than the choice to believe in (a/many) God/s?
If I say you're wrong & need 'reducation', simply because someone preached to me you were, should you accept it? Because I have as much evidence as you have in claiming that homosexuality requires Clockwork Orange-esque 'treatment'. Maybe you'd like to break out the nipple clamps on Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Sikhs while your at it?
I'm just interested to see where you're getting this from? You are waaay stretching the menaning of my words.
I never said gays were "bad" people, nor did I say they have to go to hell (well..maby if it is their own personal choice)
As far as animal homosexuality - that's plain crap. What's the evidence there? A picture of a squirrel on a squirrel? What does that tell you? For all you know the squirrel below coul very well be female. Or even if it were male, can you prove that there is actual "penetration"? If there's no penetration, there can be no talk about homosexualism....
And guess what - there is none...
So, yes, I belive being gay is a sickness, and like I said it most likely is.
I don't hate gays, actually I do belive most of them are nice people, but that's not the point.
-----
By Bob
you base all your beliefes on emotion, there may be logic built up upon it but the foundation is pure emotion.
I suppose your belefs are 100% objective, based purely on logic?
Gimme a break...
More importantly, you do realise that if it wasn't for genes mutating we'd all be blobs talking blobby language and typing on blobby computers because we'd have never got our slimy single-celled butts out of the ocean?
If homosexuality were because of a 'bad' or 'wrong' mutation, then they would have vanished. The fact that Homosexuality appears in generation after generation suggests that not only is it normal, but it may well, in wome way, be required that part of humanity be gay.
In nature, such individuals wouldn't survive ofr long, or have progeny, so tehy would in fact, practicly vanish.
Humanity protects all of it's members, even the sickest ones, and insures their survival. So that point is rather pointless.
Tell me something else, if you mutaded to have a third arm coming from your ass, would you try to remove it? Wouldn't you want to be normal?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now I want to ask you something, you said that homosexuality could be caused by a mutated gene, if you beleive this to be potentaly true why do you want to compell them to act in a manner that is against there nature and thus perpetuateing the faulty gene?
If it's a faulty gene, then in time, it could be cured with therapy.
In that case, the faulty gene wouldnt' be perpetuated, as seamen containst the copy of the LATEST genes (thus, the healthy ones..)...
-
Someone post this guy a link to Bonobo monkeys for the love of God.
And mankind is constantly evolving, no species has ever been in control of it's own diversity, so mankind will continue to evolve, whether we like it or not. What you are suggesting is for a genetic mutation, if that is what you think it is, to jump between completely non-related families. That doesn't happen.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm just interested to see where you're getting this from? You are waaay stretching the menaning of my words.
I never said gays were "bad" people, nor did I say they have to go to hell (well..maby if it is their own personal choice)
EDIT;actually, you're worse than I thought... comparing homosexuality to having a '3rd arm growing out of your arse'. So, you don't accept it under your moral code or whatever personal bias you choose, and it becomes excusable to treat these people as being less than human - 'not normal' in your own words.
I'll tell you what, I'd prefer to be a fair, free-thinking and tolerant person rather than 'normal'. I'd rather not be another mindless sheep, ready to swallow up and espouse the most bigoted, biased ****e because someone told me that's the way I should think, and damned be the evidence.
Originally posted by TrashMan
As far as animal homosexuality - that's plain crap. What's the evidence there? A picture of a squirrel on a squirrel? What does that tell you? For all you know the squirrel below coul very well be female. Or even if it were male, can you prove that there is actual "penetration"? If there's no penetration, there can be no talk about homosexualism....
And guess what - there is none...
Bulgarian seeks redress over gay pig (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/17/gay_pig/)
and, more seriously;
Aussie boffins probe lesbian cows (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/03/lesbian_cows/)
The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference (study on brain structure of gay sheep) (http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478) NB: requires subscription to read full text, see for a bit of explanation (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/08/inside_the_mind/)
Page containing information on bonobo bisexual behaviour (see section title 'Love, Not War' (http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html)
Also... black swans have been observed to form lasting male-and-male relationships, a pair of main chinstrap penguins were observed to form a lasting relationship and raise an egg at the New York zoo (multiple occurances of this have apparently been observed)
Hell, just spend 5 minutes to do some research next time - I pulled this off memory and wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if you really think that animal behaviourists can't tell a male from a female and rely on pulling together a conclusion from a single observation, then you're an idiot.
Originally posted by TrashMan
So, yes, I belive being gay is a sickness, and like I said it most likely is.
I don't hate gays, actually I do belive most of them are nice people, but that's not the point.
Eh? You basically said they were sick and defective humans just because you think so- if that's not hate-stroke-bigotry I don't know what is.
-
Ok, fine, let me ask some of you a question :-
IF I were gay, and Sharon was really Simon, then all of a sudden, in the view of half the small minded, fear obsessed, anally retentive ****s on this forum then all of a sudden I go from being a passably skilled modder and texturer who has been working on a whole new race as well as atmospheric flight and turn into some kind of 'defarlment in the fayce of Gord'
Way to be part of a community.
Sometimes you people make me sick.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, fine, let me ask some of you a question :-
IF I were gay, and Sharon was really Simon, then all of a sudden, in the view of half the small minded, fear obsessed, anally retentive ****s on this forum then all of a sudden I go from being a passably skilled modder and texturer who has been working on a whole new race as well as atmospheric flight and turn into some kind of 'defarlment in the fayce of Gord'
Way to be part of a community.
Sometimes you people make me sick.
Just be glad it's a fairly small number of small minded, fear obsessed, anally retentive ****s.
-
Indeed, certainly not enough to let them drive me away with their views ;)
BTW : I may or may not be Gay, I'm not going to say, and, quite frankly, it's no-ones business :)
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I suppose your belefs are 100% objective, based purely on logic?
yes
go on chalenge me.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Tell me something else, if you mutaded to have a third arm coming from your ass, would you try to remove it? Wouldn't you want to be normal?
that doesn't happen, or when it does it's generaly not isolated and caused by exposure to something that causes problems so severe that what ever it was dies at birth... oh, wait a sec you mean that a mutation would occur and an arm would magicly pop out of my ass right now, oh, you realy have no understanding of what the hell were tallking about do you?
but this this does sort of doge your question, if I have some change in my life like that yeah I would probly have it removed, but if I was born that way I might verywell find the conveneience for ass wipeing sake useful and love my appendage. so it sort of depends on if people through rocks at me becose of it from an early age or not.
-
you are not alowed to read this, don't even think about clicking, as it is not permited (http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/nazi.htm)
-
I heard that everyone is 30% gay....
-
well any time someone trys to do any research on it they get atacked as trying to 'justify immoral behavior', and shot down, so we don't realy know
-
Don't see what the problem is, those that don't want to believe will simply do their normal trick, stick their heads in the sand and scream 'Not True! Not True!! Waaaaagh!'.
-
Yah, but it's fun to spread the rumours, just to freak them...;)
-
the problem is when they pull there heads out of the sand they try to write laws based on there ignorant views. if it wasn't for that I could not posably care less.
-
Originally posted by Clave
I heard that everyone is 30% gay....
How would you measure that sort of thing, though?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How would you measure that sort of thing, though?
Attach electrodes to the head and measure the simulation level when shown pictures of women and men in vary shapes, sizes and states of undress?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Attach electrodes to the head and measure the simulation level when shown pictures of women and men in vary shapes, sizes and states of undress?
Yeah, but but but but... what if they're very manly women or womanly men?
Smartarse :p
-
Scary revelations all round! :lol: :eek:
-
Oh, I'm sure that when Judgement day comes around and God finds out that people have decided that they can tell the Good wheat from the Bad far better than He can, that he will be very forgiving.
After all, didn't Jesus say something about not Harvesting the crop until it was complete?
Edit : Oh, and to say that Evolution is something seperate from random genetic mutation is a mistake. Evolution is random genetic mutation.
-
no... random genetic mutation is a smal component of evolution.
-
No, those random mutations are what got it started in the first place. Single celled animals weren't trying to get out of the water and turn into apes. That's the way things went.
Yes, as time went on, Evolution seperated out onto seperate paths and started to evolve more specialised 'tools' for their niche, but even in that case, for every species that devised a working technique, their are 50 that died out for developing a different technique that didn't work as well.
There is assumed to be about 20 different triloblasts (creatures that have 3 layers, outside, inside and 'within' for organs etc) Of that 20 types, only 1 actually survived to continue. That was a mixture of the right time, the right place, and sheer luck.
-
Evolution is the selection of random genetic mutation + genetic crossover (from parents).
(well, on a simplified level it is, anyways. I know there are other sociological aspects affecting that selection, and other stuff, etc, etc)
-
ok, lets put it this way, mutation is to evolution what motor oil is to a car, it's criticle and it wouldn't work with out it but there is a lot more important things going on, most of what evolution is, is the selection process, and I'd say diverse but exsisting features probly get acted on a lot more than mutations.
-
Exactly. Giraffes didn't walk around wanting a longer neck, it was just that those with a slight genetic mutation which gave them a longer neck survived better, and therefore bred, passing on that gene.
Homosexuality doesn't work like that, it's not passed on from parent to child, it skips families and countries etc.
-
homosexuality could simply be a resesive gene, or a side effect of something else, or both, or something else entierly (like anomolus hormonal levels dureing a pregnancy).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Homosexuality doesn't work like that, it's not passed on from parent to child, it skips families and countries etc.
Maybe it can if it's recessive... IIRC some genetic traits are dormant except in certain combinations. Like hair colour, for example.
Of course, homosexuality could simply be a different manifestation of a very common gene - i.e. maybe it's a tendency many people have, but which only becomes, um, 'active' with the effect of certain social tendencies or pressures. In whichs case it'd be a combination of genetics, societal pressures and choice in response to said pressures.
EDIT; of course, what about bisexuality? That sure as hell wouldn't be a barrier to reproduction, and IIRC was common/accepted in ancient civillisations like Greece.
-
:ha: beat you to it!
-
hehehe Possibly, but that still doesn't explain the 'social sex' in Bonobo monkeys for example. Genetic throwbacks could occur in the same family etc, but the fact it happens all over the world suggests that we all share a common bi-sexual ancestor.
And yes, Bisexuality was very common in Greece, it's even been suggested that, were it not for self-placed social barriers, mankind would be a bisexual race.
-
Bonobos srew like there's no tomoro, chimps groom each other, humans engage in volent and bloody wars, diferent animals diferent socal bonding methods.
Bonobos, while a good example of homosexuality in animals and other such things, are an anomoly, very few animals are THAT sexualy active. there close relation to us does complicate things when discussing humans however, but you can't use them to say anything about the role of homosexuality (ect) in all animals (or anything outside closly related primates, wich would include ourselves as mantioned).
-
Indeed, they are the closest possible relative to humans, only 1.6% DNA difference. However, as has been pointed out, that 1.6% could tell the other 98.4% to behave completely differently ;)
Bonobo's use sex to replace violence, rather than argue, they have sex, that calms the situation down and avoids a fight. That is how Bonobos bond and stay in their groups, else they would be just as violent and destructive as their chimpanzee cousins.
The thing is that, my cousin is just as likely to have a homosexual child as a tribe in the deepest Amazon. If that is the case, then this genetic throwback must go back to when both my cousins family and the Amazon tribe were part of the same 'Primate' source which carried this gene for one reason or the other. Assuming homosexuality is genetic, of course :)
-
http://home.earthlink.net/~ekerilaz/weerdingemen.html
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/facts2.html#5
'Gay mythology has a strong hold on the imagination of many people in society. The truth about lesbians and gay men is, in most cases, much more mundane.
Homosexuality is rare The incidence of homosexuality in any given human society has consistently been reckoned as being between one and ten per cent. Gay people exist in cultures all over the world, and have done throughout recorded history.
Homosexuality is something that is learned/taught
It is commonly believed that young people in particular are vulnerable to any encouragement to become homosexual. This is despite the fact that over 99% of gay people originate from an upbringing that is strictly heterosexual, and if sexual orientation was purely dependent upon outside influences there would be no gay people at all in homophobic societies like the United Kingdom. As Michael B King and Pat Pattison state:
Most children who develop a homosexual orientation have heterosexual parents. Indeed, if social learning hypotheses are credible it is a wonder that a homosexual orientation develops at all in the face of strong family and societal models of heterosexuality." (British Medical Journal, 3 August 1991)
One particularly common and nasty myth is that men become homosexual after being sexually interfered with or 'corrupted' by gay adults when they are young. But if every boy who is sexually abused became homosexual, the number of gay men in the world would be well in excess of 10%.
Homosexuals want to have sex with ANYONE of the same sex
This is a result of the tendency to think of gay people purely in sexual terms, rather than as being human beings that do all the other normal things that people do. Gay people are defined as such by their sexuality, but so are heterosexuals. Being gay doesn't mean having sex 24 hours a day, gay people also cook, go shopping, watch telly, etc. It doesn't occur to many heterosexuals that a gay person might actually find them unattractive and respond with "Don't flatter yourself!"
This myth is also fuelled by the previous two; if gay people are thin on the ground it logically follows that they must be in a constant state of sexual frustration, and are seeking to increase their numbers by trying to persuade heterosexuals to become homosexual. The infamous American homophobe Anita Bryant summed it up when she said "They cannot reproduce, therefore they must recruit." In the main it is true that most gay people who are part of a gay community know plenty of gay people they can choose from (or may, in fact, be in a monogamous relationship), and it would be ludicrous to risk offending or alienating a poor unsuspecting heterosexual who is bound to say no!
Another form of this myth is that all gay men are 'promiscuous'; that they are always having sex with each other, and as many different men as possible. Some people claim that this is based on observation, but it is observation of a very limited sample of gay men. The vast majority of gay people are isolated and have considerably less sex than the average heterosexual.
Homosexuals abuse children
The majority of child sex abuse is committed by heterosexual men, usually within the family. Again, the lumping together of all forms of sexual 'perversion' creates this myth and it is reinforced by the tendency of the media to report child abuse as 'homosexual' child abuse or 'homosexual' paedophilia if a boy is molested by a man, whereas if a girl is molested by a man it is simply referred to as child abuse, never as 'heterosexual child abuse'.
The important point here is to distinguish between consensual sex and non-consensual sexual abuse. Rape is NOT sex. Rape is a form of violence that uses sex to hurt people, and the type of personality that is capable of sexually abusing another human being has no relation to which gender a person wants to make love with. King and Pattison point out that the evidence indicates that children of both sexes and adult women are often assaulted by the same man (Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders, G. Abel, J. Becker, J. Cunningham-Rather. M.Mittleman, JL. Rouleau; Bull Ann Academy of Psychiatric Law 1988; 16:153-68) '
Gay men dress up in women's clothes
Transvestism is a totally separate phenomenon from homosexuality. The majority of transvestites are heterosexual men, very often married with children. Some gay men do dress up on occasion, but usually it is as female impersonators ("drag") on stage, or else just for a laugh as fancy dress when going out. Transvestism is a heterosexual fetish; a man's desire for a woman's body expressed by wearing the clothes that simultaneously hide and mystify it. Most gay people look - and dress - just like anyone else.
All gay men practice anal intercourse every time they have sex
This myth reflects the preoccupation of heterosexual society with penetration, and tells us more about heterosexuals than it does about gay people! In fact, anal intercourse is a sexual activity that is practised by people - heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. - alike, and is no more or less popular among gay people than it is among heterosexuals (about 25% in both cases).
Just to keep things on keel ;)
-
What always amuses me is that nobody ever complains about the lesbians they see on the internet.
-
Another interesting fact is that Darwin never ever used the phrase 'Survival of the fittest'. That was coined by a reporter and had the upside of convincing everyone that they knew what Darwin was talking about, and the downside of convincing everyone that they knew what Darwin was talking about ;)
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
What always amuses me is that nobody ever complains about the lesbians they see on the internet.
I'm sure some people do, but it's a pretty small number...
The whole gay debate should be happening imo. It's like persecuting people who wear polo shirts instead of t-shirts. Yes I know that's simplistic, but people should be left alone to do whatever (legal) things they want in privacy....
-
Originally posted by Clave
I'm sure some people do, but it's a pretty small number...
Some lesbians are ugly.
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIT;actually, you're worse than I thought... comparing homosexuality to having a '3rd arm growing out of your arse'. So, you don't accept it under your moral code or whatever personal bias you choose, and it becomes excusable to treat these people as being less than human - 'not normal' in your own words.
///Treating them as being less than human? When did I say that?
I'll tell you what, I'd prefer to be a fair, free-thinking and tolerant person rather than 'normal'. I'd rather not be another mindless sheep, ready to swallow up and espouse the most bigoted, biased ****e because someone told me that's the way I should think, and damned be the evidence.
///Ahh...yes. This was so expected. The uber-liberal, no-backbone people have such a strong urge to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them and put as many labels as they can.
Such as "conservative", "religios fanatic" or other to make them sound as bad as possible. Well, I'm neither...
What happened to the freedom of speech and repecting other people's oppinion insted of insulting?
Also... black swans have been observed to form lasting male-and-male relationships, a pair of main chinstrap penguins were observed to form a lasting relationship and raise an egg at the New York zoo (multiple occurances of this have apparently been observed)
Hell, just spend 5 minutes to do some research next time - I pulled this off memory and wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if you really think that animal behaviourists can't tell a male from a female and rely on pulling together a conclusion from a single observation, then you're an idiot.
///// Behavioralist crap. I don't have a tendecy to trust anything some so-called scientist said. They tend to counter eachoter all the tie anyway. (Carrot is the healtiest fruit! No, wait - it's spinach. now whan I think about it, it's a tomato!)
did you know that in animal kingdom it is common for the alpha male to jump on the weaker one to demonstrate his superiority (effectivly saying: "you're my *****. I'm the boss!"). However, he only acts it like they're doing something. Like I said before - no penetration. So unless you have some 100% CLEAR proof, dont waste my time.
On the other note, even if there are gay animals, they are very rare, and that only proves that it's a anomaly.
Eh? You basically said they were sick and defective humans just because you think so- if that's not hate-stroke-bigotry I don't know what is.
So If I say that someone with Alzheimers desease is sick and I want for a cure to be found I am a biggot? In that case I am.
Mah...my roommate sez that I should not waste my time in discussion like this. He thinks that most of the people on the internet are either extreemists or morons. Hmm...when you think about it, the same could very well apply to the humanity in general. Maby he wasn't far from the truth...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
///Treating them as being less than human? When did I say that?
You said 'not normal'. Therefore, not worthy of the consideration you'd give a 'normal' person. Y'know, the right to have basic freedoms such as choice. Or comparing them to genetically defective mutants with a superfluous 3rd arm.
Maybe i should have used 'treating them inhumanely'; that would be more appropriate with regards to previous statements.
Originally posted by TrashMan
///Ahh...yes. This was so expected. The uber-liberal, no-backbone people have such a strong urge to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them and put as many labels as they can.
Such as "conservative", "religios fanatic" or other to make them sound as bad as possible. Well, I'm neither...
What happened to the freedom of speech and repecting other people's oppinion insted of insulting?
Hey, I'm sorry if I get pissed off, but if you can insult peoples integrity and opinion ala below, I don't see why I can't make similar broad generalisations.
You may notice I never used the words 'conservative' or 'religious fanatic', though - these are the connotations you made, not me.
All I referred to was preffering to be a person willing to think independently and be tolerant, rather than swallow and espouse everything I'm told without consideration of the facts. Because your definition of 'normal' appears to be anyone who conforms to the narrow spectrum defined by your world-view & opinions.
Originally posted by TrashMan
///// Behavioralist crap. I don't have a tendecy to trust anything some so-called scientist said. They tend to counter eachoter all the tie anyway. (Carrot is the healtiest fruit! No, wait - it's spinach. now whan I think about it, it's a tomato!)
did you know that in animal kingdom it is common for the alpha male to jump on the weaker one to demonstrate his superiority (effectivly saying: "you're my *****. I'm the boss!"). However, he only acts it like they're doing something. Like I said before - no penetration. So unless you have some 100% CLEAR proof, dont waste my time.
On the other note, even if there are gay animals, they are very rare, and that only proves that it's a anomaly.
Y'know, that's so dismissive of basic scientific research and process that I don't think I even need to counter. I mean, your making a case by bad-mouthing multiple scientists who have had research published and subjected to peer scrutiny? By that same context you could validate the flat-earth theory and decide gravity doesn't exists. It's there, it exists, it's well documented - get over it.
I wonder, would you be so quick to dismiss it if you agreed with it? I doubt so.
Originally posted by TrashMan
So If I say that someone with Alzheimers desease is sick and I want for a cure to be found I am a biggot? In that case I am.
Altzheimers is a disease whose symptoms are the deterioration of brain tissue. Homosexuality in now way fits into the definition of a disease - it does not impair the function of the body or bodily systems in any way.
The only possible way you could even claim it to be is by placing the fuctions of the human body as defined within a social context. By that context, you are just as diseased as any homosexual, simply because you are doubtless socially different. By the same criteria, you could justify racism, sectarianism as being curative of 'disease' - the disease of being different.
Don't even try to claim you have the moral high ground here, because anyone with a modicum of sense and tolerance can see you're making a completely unsustainable statement.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Mah...my roommate sez that I should not waste my time in discussion like this. He thinks that most of the people on the internet are either extreemists or morons. Hmm...when you think about it, the same could very well apply to the humanity in general. Maby he wasn't far from the truth...
About extremism? I think we can see it very clearly here.......however, perhaps you should consider that extremism is " any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies". I'm the one asking for tolerance, acceptance, compromise if you will. Trying to denounce me as, what, some sort of anti-religious (if your reasoning is religion based.... because there's no scientific basis, and all else you could give is personal bias and prejudice) extremist is just pathetic, really.
What next, you'll compare me to Hitler because I want a different social group to be treated as equals? Not by you (because I realise that would be a futile hope), but by society as a whole. I mean, people in the US south IIRC also used the Bible to justify racism & slavery, didn't they? Couldn't the same thing be happening now with regards to sexuality?
EDIt; oh, and case you haven't noticed; in a lot of the religious threads we've had over time, I've always put out an opposing-stroke-moderating viewpoint towards Kazans despisal of religion. I've made it very clear I have no objections to other people having religious beliefs - even though I am personally an aetheist - so long as they don't try to force it on others or use it as an excuse to hurt others. So calling me an extremist is really about as far from the truth as is possible. I find it somewhat petty, in all honesty.
-
Your room-mate. Ah......... I see...........
That's the lovely thing about having someone else supply your opinions for you :)
-
I probably shouldn't let myself get worked up by this sort of thing. But I believe - passionately - in tolerance, equality,fairness etc (all the 'good' parts of human nature), so I can't help it.
-
It is listening to him trying to justify the kind of ignorance induced fear and intolerance that his country claims to be waging a war on.
Edit : As I tried to say earlier, judge people for who they are not how they are different from you. I might be Gay for all you know, but that doesn't mean I'm not a modder and texturer as well, but you would rather hate the Gay than see the Modder and Texturer.
That is a weakness in you, and one that can, and will, be exploited when you are older.
-
Arguing on the net is like poking jelly with a stick.
But, that aside, the interesting thing for me is that I do say stuff that I'd never say in real life, and vice-versa (mainly due to filtering) So are people extremists? No, not really, but I think they express the far ends of their opinion to make the point as strongly as possible.
Um, anyway, arguments: http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
-
Oh, indeed, because people are 'hidden' behind nicknames, myself included, you end up seeing, I think, more of the persons 'True' feelings about things. :)
Ahhh.. Monty Python :)
-
The cloak of anonymity is something something.....
Albeit I did pick about the closest thing to my real name as possible when I reggied here, so I'm not that anonymous.
And you can't go wrong with Monty.
-
I heard a rumour that John Cleese was doing some new sketch show on TV....
-
how did this thread become a discussion on scetch comedy? :wtf:
I generaly have better responces to people becose I can spend a few minutes formulateing a responce without looking like I'm uninformed.
-
So?
Pretty much everything has been said:
Some people are tolerant of gays, some are not - the end.
I can consider a response all day long if you like, but I have better, or at least, more interesting things to do....
OK.... in an effort to un-derail the thread, who is your favourite gay comedian, and why? :nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You said 'not normal'. Therefore, not worthy of the consideration you'd give a 'normal' person. Y'know, the right to have basic freedoms such as choice. Or comparing them to genetically defective mutants with a superfluous 3rd arm.
Maybe i should have used 'treating them inhumanely'; that would be more appropriate with regards to previous statements.
//////// Since when is not being normal = don't treat them with respect? That's YOUR view, not mine.
Basic freedoms for gays? Yes. They are free to do whatever they want as long as they do in in their own house (well, except for adopting children. I'm strongly against it)
Hey, I'm sorry if I get pissed off, but if you can insult peoples integrity and opinion ala below, I don't see why I can't make similar broad generalisations.
When have I insulted anyone? If you have a cold and say "You're sick", I am insulting you? Granted, there may be gays who would feel insulted by such a description, but they cannot prove to me that it's not a sickness...
You may notice I never used the words 'conservative' or 'religious fanatic', though - these are the connotations you made, not me.
Then I answed in the wrong post. Someone else said that. My mistake.
All I referred to was preffering to be a person willing to think independently and be tolerant, rather than swallow and espouse everything I'm told without consideration of the facts. Because your definition of 'normal' appears to be anyone who conforms to the narrow spectrum defined by your world-view & opinions.
Oh, I am tolerant nad I do consider the facts. Jsut what do you know of my definition of normal. and just to what normal are you refering to? What should be normal? Currently normal? Or normal in the western world?
Y'know, that's so dismissive of basic scientific research and process that I don't think I even need to counter. I mean, your making a case by bad-mouthing multiple scientists who have had research published and subjected to peer scrutiny? By that same context you could validate the flat-earth theory and decide gravity doesn't exists. It's there, it exists, it's well documented - get over it.
No grvity is there.
Altzheimers is a disease whose symptoms are the deterioration of brain tissue. Homosexuality in now way fits into the definition of a disease - it does not impair the function of the body or bodily systems in any way.
The only possible way you could even claim it to be is by placing the fuctions of the human body as defined within a social context. By that context, you are just as diseased as any homosexual, simply because you are doubtless socially different. By the same criteria, you could justify racism, sectarianism as being curative of 'disease' - the disease of being different.
Load of crap. No ofense. Not that I feel the need to justify or defend my views anyway....
Don't even try to claim you have the moral high ground here, because anyone with a modicum of sense and tolerance can see you're making a completely unsustainable statement.
Really? I haven't noticed that... Not that I said anything that's morally wrong anyway...
-
TM, you claim to not be ignorant in this matter, yet every other word in your posts suggest to the contrary :doubt:.
-
http://www.brainzipper.com/moops.mpe
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
//////// Since when is not being normal = don't treat them with respect? That's YOUR view, not mine.
Basic freedoms for gays? Yes. They are free to do whatever they want as long as they do in in their own house (well, except for adopting children. I'm strongly against it)
You;ve just contradicted yourself there. Basic freedoms include congregation; not a pseudo house arrest. Maybe you should look at the UN declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
Article 9 can be said to apply to this (albiet to an abstract degree), Article 12 can also be applied, Article 16 can also be applied (note that this does not define marriage as between a man and a woman), the 'public' part of Article 18 also applies.
not forgetting the very first article, of course.
you may also care to note that the UN secretary general supports homosexual marriage on the basis of this document; http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/aug/03080501.html
I believe Brazil has also tabled a proposed amendment to cover the non-specific covering of homosexuality in this declaration; specifically to ensure equal and fair treatment; unfortunately this was withdrawn under pressure from Catholic and Muslim countries. you could say this in itself contravenes the UDHR.
Originally posted by TrashMan
When have I insulted anyone? If you have a cold and say "You're sick", I am insulting you? Granted, there may be gays who would feel insulted by such a description, but they cannot prove to me that it's not a sickness...
You are when I'm not ill.
Sick has a very clear meaning - " not in good physical or mental health" - this implies that homosexuals are in some way mentally or physically deficiant, which is completely wrong.
Simply, you cannot prove it is a sickness, and certainly not by any medical manner. And if you can't prove it in a medical fashion, how can you possibly decry it using a medical term?
Originally posted by TrashMan
Oh, I am tolerant nad I do consider the facts. Jsut what do you know of my definition of normal. and just to what normal are you refering to? What should be normal? Currently normal? Or normal in the western world?
Conformist normal. You have said you do not believe homosexuals are normal. As there is no medical or rational basis for this, all I can conclude is that this definition of normal is based on your personal biases.
My personal opinion is that the only definition of 'normal' that is required is 'human being'.
Originally posted by TrashMan
No grvity is there.
So now the observations of scientists are valid? Animal homosexuality is there, too, in case you didn't actually read the various links / text pointed out. Studied and observed and currently under research to determine the causes.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Load of crap. No ofense. Not that I feel the need to justify or defend my views anyway....
What, so Altzheimers is not a disease? Or if that's not what you mean, then define how homosexuality can be defined as a disease when it fits none of the biological criteria?
Originally posted by TrashMan
Really? I haven't noticed that... Not that I said anything that's morally wrong anyway...
You're the one preaching 'reeducation' for a social group, not me. I would say that forcing your beliefs upon a social group, by either imposing restrictions upon their basic human rights or advocating the somewhat sinister concept of 'reeducation' is completely morally wrong. If you replace homosexual with 'black', or 'muslim', or 'liberal', or 'conservative' - or indeed any of the common denominators we use - it's blatantly wrong.
-
ok, I ocnsiter Chistianity a sickness there for you ar now prohibeted by law from going to church, like that?
realy you think there is a magical man in the sky who made the world from the mud of a river and comands you to atack those who don't worship him. that's prety ****ing sick as far as I'm concerned, so there, your sick I will make you better by forceing you to not practice any Chistian traditions.
or you know, as I have said about fifty thousand god damned times over the last couple of weeks, we could just let people live there lives they way they want to.
-
BAH... I actually considered writing a long and detail reply to this, but I see there is no point, since my words are being stretched beyond comprehension.
So, one FINAL and VERY LAST time, to clarify things:
@aldo_14
House arrest? Did I say that? Nope.
Like I said, I don't hate gays.
I specificly said that they should have normal human rights.
The only thing that bugs me is their constant need for exposure - gay parades and constant talks of their rights. I don't see hetero paredes around.
It's kinda like that Tweetie cartoon - small and cute, but it goes on your nerves (actually, 90% of the people I know would like to see a episode or two where the bird gets it allready!)
And like I said - there are scientist who claim to have found the gay gene. They say it's a product of that faulty gene - thus, an anomaly.
My definition of normal is how a avarage man should be (relisticly..not aiming for perfection).
About animal homosexuality - by gay animals I mean REALLY gay animals. In other words, those who really do it. I've seen no proof of actual penetration nowhere, so as far as I'm concerned that's not really gay...
OK...that's enough for today and tomorow and the day after tht... This thread is plummeting fast, and I'm bailing out before it hits ground...
*Takes a parachute and jumps*
-
do you realy want us to post gay animal porn or something?
-
ok, so becase it isn't 'normal' it's a deseise, and therefore they need to be 're-educated' or corected or something.
well then would a 'normal' person be able to make this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25015.0.html) or what about one of these (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,27491.0.html), if any normal person could, then the topics about them probly wouldn't have gone off to be 3 pages long without me even getting done with them. so I guess that means that I am not 'normal' and that I need to have what ever anomoly that alows me to do this removed. or corected this is the sort of thing you are perscribeing.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
BAH... I actually considered writing a long and detail reply to this, but I see there is no point, since my words are being stretched beyond comprehension.
Possibly you should consider a clear and concise phrasing, then. Make it exactly clear what your mindset it - switching from 'don't hate, but don't want to see either' to 'they're sick' to 'reeducation is required' to 'genetic anomoly' over a thread can be very confusing.
Originally posted by TrashMan
So, one FINAL and VERY LAST time, to clarify things:
@aldo_14
House arrest? Did I say that? Nope.
Like I said, I don't hate gays.
I specificly said that they should have normal human rights.
The only thing that bugs me is their constant need for exposure - gay parades and constant talks of their rights. I don't see hetero paredes around.
You'll note I said 'pseudo' house arrest. you can interpret this as the 'arrest' of personality - In many respects, being denied the right to express a key facet of yourself is worse than physical arrest.
Heterosexuals aren't subject to a constant constant barrage of phobic behaviour, there's no need for a 'counter-culture', or a need to express themselves openly. For 360-odd days of a year, many homosexuals will be 'forced' (by the general biases and preconceptions of society) to keep their sexual orientation behind bars; it's understandable that some feel the need to have a day when they can feel 'free' in this.
and, of course, you're ignoring the likes of mardi gras, where heterosexual sex is very much on the agenda. It's just that you don't see that as being 'promotion' because you accept that orientation and not the other.
As for rights...well, it's self evident; homosexuals are discriminated against both by society and by law. In the latter case, due to a result of both entrenched attitudes and a lack of sexual openness when they were formed (with respect to pre 80s or so laws in particular). However, you've shown - IMO - that you don't believe in the concept of 'fairness' towards homosexuals (demanding changes to their behaviour, etc, which would not be applied to heterosexuals), so how could you honestly decide whether or not they are right to complain about inequality?
Originally posted by TrashMan
And like I said - there are scientist who claim to have found the gay gene. They say it's a product of that faulty gene - thus, an anomaly.
Who says it is a 'faulty' gene? Because the same standards could mean that having red hair is down to an 'anomaly' and faulty gene.
Originally posted by TrashMan
My definition of normal is how a avarage man should be (relisticly..not aiming for perfection).
And I presume the definition of 'average' is the one you make? And what about the average female? Or are we ignoring that one?
Originally posted by TrashMan
About animal homosexuality - by gay animals I mean REALLY gay animals. In other words, those who really do it. I've seen no proof of actual penetration nowhere, so as far as I'm concerned that's not really gay...
What about female bonobo monkeys who rub their genitals apart each other until orgasm (for example) - or do you not count lesbians as homosexual? (what were you expecting, vibrators?).
Also, you're showing a fairly narrow mindset of the definition of homosexuality, as it being simply intercourse. It is evidently not; it encompasses the ability and desire to form a lasting, 'loving' relationship with a member of the same sex.
You can also derive that homosexual sex is for pleasure - as evidenced by the bonobo monkey example in particular (inlcuding males), this does not require penetration.
And you do realise 'no proof of penetration nowhere' is a double negative, yeah?
-
ok, I didn't want to have to do this, but I have been left no other choice.
here is a animated gif of two male Bonabos doing it
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/fuc[b][/b]k2.gif
oh god damn the filter sucks
they are in a zoo and it is known that hey are male
here is a pic of one male Bonabo going down on another
(http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/downtown.jpg)
not sure exactly what sort of act is being performed here, but it involves the ass and the one on top sure does seem to be enjoying it
(http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/porked.jpg)
and finaly we have a few females rubbing there bits together
(http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/HokaHoka4.jpg)
as you may imagin, finding scientific photos of "gay animal sex" useing google tends to have a rather high... 'signal to noise ratio' and I am not going to go through any more of it. you have your proof, gay monkey sex. enjoy.
-
Dionysus! He's not just for people anymore! Hymnos, Evoe!
-
They found what causes it!!! It's not genetic! It's... it's...
topically applied!!!
(http://www.engrish.com/image/engrish/soap.jpg)
-
Bobboau, those images are things I did not need to see...
-
yeah sorry bout that, but the trsh guy NEEDED to see them, course he still won't beleive it so I probly scared you for life for no good reason.
-
Bob, I think you've succeeded in mentally scarring multiple people.
-
Originally posted by Raa
They found what causes it!!! It's not genetic! It's... it's...
topically applied!!!
(http://www.engrish.com/image/engrish/soap.jpg)
:lol: :lol:
-
*physically cringes at bob's pictures*
EEEP! I did not need to see that!! :eek:
Raa: Heehee! Fantastic! :lol: