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?
