[StratComm]

Part of the problem with that is that you consider it something that's working wrong, not just working differently.  There is certainly something physically different, though I doubt it's genetic, about homosexuals (though don't overemphesize pheremones, as they play very little roll in the human attration due, in no small part, to the volume of chemicals we immerse ourselves in daily) but they are just different.  Not damaged.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much of the anti-gay-marriage camp, but I don't think they deserve substandard rights.  What I'd like to see (in an ideal world) that would essentially solve that problem is a case where mariage was not a state institution, but rather replaced by a civil union (uncouple the word, shrug off almost all of the foundation of the opposition) but have marriage require, and thus imply, a civil union.

I, however, do not personally like to be reminded that someone is gay.  The effiminate voice or motions are one thing, fine.  You're not bothering me with that.  But don't run around in a skirt singing "My Guy" as loud as you can when "your guy" isn't even there.  It's a fine and very grey line between just being and forcing others to acknowledge your way of life, but it's a line that I can't stand once crossed.

[Kazan]

StrattComm so since you're offended by refereces to their way of life you should not make any references to yours around them

otherwise you're setting up a double standard

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Oh..I dunno.

How would you call a biological "quirk" that prevents an individual from functioning "normally" in all areas?

I'm not sure; are you defining homosexuality as being that?  Because it's not; the brain functions normally (motor skills, learning, cognition), and the body functions normally.  The only difference is sexual attraction, but that's something which varies hugely across people anyways (in terms of the type of people we are attracted).  Certainly, there is no damage caused to the individual, unless you care to quantify one.

(If you want to be anal about it, then there is probably no such thing as a 'normal' person in terms of individual behaviour. )

I'll note the use of 'normal' (the implication being that homosexuals are abnormal) chimes in with the link in the first post.

I don't think it's a learned behavior. The sorrounding might have some influennce, but I belive ti's negligable. After all, I think most homosexuals come from normal families and inviroments..

And I don't thinks sexual attraction is something you can learn, since it's a biological process in the first place...

Like chemichal reacton to pheromones for instance.

Not learned as such; caused by environmental factors.  Most scientific evidence so far AFAIK supports an environmental role in sexual orientation, although the degree of possible genetic effect upon that is still to be determined.

Actually, chemical reactions can be formed.  All learning is simply a process of strengthening the chemical bonds between neurons (i.e. each sensory input has a corresponding pattern of neuron firings) and the corresponding response of that pattern (you'll have to forgive me for not knowing the exact details offhand; this comes from some studying into neural networks so the biological info wasn't too detailed).  Somewhat akin to the smell of hamburgers reminding person A of barbeques, and person B of napalmed bodies in Vietnam.

  The issue of how predetermined sexual attraction is, and to what range it's an automatic response, is something I'd suggest is far beyond clear and possibly beyond the expertise of anyone here (unless we have a neurologist or similar) to definitively discuss.

Question is - is the body functioning normally? Like I said, sexual attraction is a biological process. For someone to be attracted to the same sex SOMETHING has to working wrong.

Why? Working different - does not equal working wrong.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Kazan
StrattComm so since you're offended by refereces to their way of life you should not make any references to yours around them

otherwise you're setting up a double standard

That's really only valid in the context of what I said if choosing to date women is construed to be equivalent to shoving that fact in gay people's faces.  I don't do that and I have as much of an issue against straight people who shove it in the face of gays.

My point is that I never said exactly where I place that line.  I never said I had a problem with public affection between homosexual individuals.  (I am not particularly pleased by it, I'll admit, but I am in no way going to knock it unless it's done with the purpose of shoving it in my face.)  I do however not particularly like most acts of affection of a similar nature from heterosexual people in public.  And I certainly don't like it when someone goes around yelling "I'm Straight!" (or some symbolic equivalent).  It's you who are assuming said bias exists, for I profess none of it.  I can't help the way I feel about it personally, but it's my opinion and I am in no way intending to force, or even to persuade, anyone else to agree.

[Kazan]

I didn't make an assumption because i gave you the option to backout and say that you weren't

[BlackDove]

I seriously don't get people.

Anyone - and I mean ANYONE who has any sort of an issue with Gay people. Why the gay people? All around you, are equally perverted, sadistic, evil, STUPID (caplocked because that's the most common one), ominous people - and out of all of them, you single out the GAY people to be the issue?

Wake the hell up and smell the crumbling of the human race. Start making the world better by shedding the imaginary boundaries your idiot parents/teachers taught you and start filtering information for yourself in a logical way.

Wait, I'm asking too much here.

I'm REALLY glad we aren't in the position to travel abysmal distances, and locate other life-forms in the distance of space. Then we'd be actually screwing with someone who'd want to obliterate us as a whole, because I'm quite sure we'd exhibit the same type of a behaviour we exhibit to eachother today. It would just be focused on the thing that separates us from what we call "normal" the most.

Bah, that's the end of my opinionated rant.

[mikhael]

Can we stop lumping sadists in with bad people, please? Masochists either.

[Kazan]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sadist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=masochist

both a little "off" but if it's only roleplayed, and consentual then it's fine

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by mikhael
Can we stop lumping sadists in with bad people, please? Masochists either.

No we can't. People who act on their primal impulses outside of normal boundaries aren't doing any good to anyone. Sadism isn't just sexual gratification from inflicting pain (although that's ****ed up enough as it is), it is an act of intentional cruelty.

Masochism isn't tied into my context, so I don't see the need for it to be brought up. That is, unless you think Sadism and Masochism are tied together all the time, in which case you would be mistaken.

The Sadism I'm talking about (which you should be able to derive from my context if you understood my easy-to-understand point) would be the... and this will be an extreme example just to illustrate the point - parents turning out cigarettes on their children. But any form of cruelty will suffice.

If you are unable to allow your sense of morality, being fairness and JUSTICE, to govern your surroundings and to primarily govern yourself with, you are doing a disservice to humanity.

Now we can parade around with the small talk of "Yeah, you say "Your sense of morality" Yeah, so my sense of morality is to hate homo's, ha ha, you're wrong!" - Good one there, got me. If your sense of justice and fairness includes intentional harm based on facts that do not concern you, Bravo! Do you want your medal now?

[Kazan]

BlackDove: nothing wrong with it if it's consentual  --- so that doesn't include your example there

[BlackDove]

Again, I'm not talking about consentsual. Consentsual is regulated, and what people do to eachother for PLEASURE is none of my buisness.

Read my posts until you get what I'm talking about.

[Kazan]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=consensual

see 2b

[bad spelling on my part]

[BlackDove]

Yes, I know what the word means, in all forms.

Again, that is what I'm exempting from my context. It doesn't play a role with what I associate the word with, in this particular discussion.

[Kazan]

then you have to stop making blanket statements if you're allowing for that MAJOR exception

[BlackDove]

I'm not making blanket statements, and I've already said multiple times that I am allowing that exception.

[mikhael]

As I'm talking about sadism and masochism in the context of safe, sane and consensual activity, stop lumping the concepts in unsafe, insane and nonconsensual activities. There. Am I quite bloody clear enough now?

[BlackDove]

Nobody cares what you are - I am the originator of the opinion, you commented on MY opinion.

If you're going to comment on my opinion, stick to the context.

[mikhael]

Actually, if you'd like to pay attention, Blackdove, I'm the one that mentioned sadism and masochism in the first place. If you're going to comment on the topic I introduced, stick to the context.

[icespeed]

so this homosexuality thing... why exactly is it bad? (i may have missed something out here.) other than the religious aspect. or is it not bad, outside religious context?

(from my point of view, thinking is as bad as doing, but then again, we're all bad in different ways, so why pick on the gays, the jews, the murderers, the thiefs, the... in fact the everyone who doesn't appear to be societally normal? no one's normal and everyone's bad. there we go, equality achieved. problem solved.)

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, if you'd like to pay attention, Blackdove, I'm the one that mentioned sadism and masochism in the first place. If you're going to comment on the topic I introduced, stick to the context.

Topics grow, and shift. Nobody cares about what you said before, and I sure as hell didn't consult it in my post.

My original comment wasn't pertaining to anything you said. I didn't care about what you said before about sadism or masochism nor was I relating to it. I was expressing my opinion, and it happened to include my views on negative things, including sadism, which I defined for you in my context.

Trying to play my game doesn't work, since I never refered to your interpertations of sadism or masochism.

I would love to school you on how threads work, but that would be going completely off topic.

If you are going to comment incorrectly to something I've said, I will be happy to correct you, just as I'm doing now. If you don't, steer clear of my posts and continue to weave your own train of thought, and if I find myself commenting on your said post, I will try to have the decency to stick to YOUR context.