Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Homosexual Urban Legends...the series.

Homosexual Urban Legends...the series. (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:27 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Woaw...

If you cannot make a difference between a child and an adult, you become a problem.
Wha? I said nothing about there being no difference between a child and a adult. Another knee-jerk.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
If two girls enjoy a threesome with a guy and while they do that they pleasure each other are they bisexual, gay or just having a good time?
sluts
In vino veritas.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:42 PM
 
I'm going to be an @sshole and suggest to the mods that they cease MacNN's abetting of wholesale copyright violation by the user whose alias is "dcolton." Not only is he not properly attributing or linking a source, but he is going beyond plagiarism into wholesale copyright violation. Might I suggest a paring down of the posts to the first and last paragraphs of the articles copied? That is, unless dcolton wishes to edit his posts himself.

Linking to your source with a few excerpts to tantalize the reader is sufficient, thank you. Or are you too lazy to read that stuff for yourself so that you know what's worth excerpting and what's not?

BlackGriffen
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:45 PM
 
Dcolton, I'm getting confused with what you are posting.

If homosexuality is a mental illness, then homosexuals have no choice in the matter, and is most likely genetic (like so many other mental illnesses). But even if it is a mental illness, one can't necessarily treat it. Not all things are treatable. (one of your articles said that homosexuality is a mental illness, yet the other one said that homosexuality doesn't come with birth, the two a contradictory).

Personally, I believe it is some kind of mental illness as it is a sexual orientation in which the participant has no choice of being. But hey, hold back the flames. 3/4 (my own little statistic) of the world have some kind of mental illness. Mental illnesses are too much of a taboo in today's society. So many people have depression, yet are untreated, have Asperger's syndrome, yet untreated, or mood fluctuations yet untreated. The more we recognize and accept people with mental illnesses, the more likely people will become treated, and maybe we will have less suicides on our hands.
In vino veritas.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:54 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm going to be an @sshole and suggest to the mods that they cease MacNN's abetting of wholesale copyright violation by the user whose alias is "dcolton." Not only is he not properly attributing or linking a source, but he is going beyond plagiarism into wholesale copyright violation. Might I suggest a paring down of the posts to the first and last paragraphs of the articles copied? That is, unless dcolton wishes to edit his posts himself.

Linking to your source with a few excerpts to tantalize the reader is sufficient, thank you. Or are you too lazy to read that stuff for yourself so that you know what's worth excerpting and what's not?

BlackGriffen
Your kidding right?

Ahhaa
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:54 PM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Dcolton, I'm getting confused with what you are posting.

If homosexuality is a mental illness, then homosexuals have no choice in the matter, and is most likely genetic (like so many other mental illnesses). But even if it is a mental illness, one can't necessarily treat it. Not all things are treatable. (one of your articles said that homosexuality is a mental illness, yet the other one said that homosexuality doesn't come with birth, the two a contradictory).

Personally, I believe it is some kind of mental illness as it is a sexual orientation in which the participant has no choice of being. But hey, hold back the flames. 3/4 (my own little statistic) of the world have some kind of mental illness. Mental illnesses are too much of a taboo in today's society. So many people have depression, yet are untreated, have Asperger's syndrome, yet untreated, or mood fluctuations yet untreated. The more we recognize and accept people with mental illnesses, the more likely people will become treated, and maybe we will have less suicides on our hands.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/spitzer3.html
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 08:57 PM
 
Originally posted by sanity assassin:
You're assuming that we all think like you, that Palestinians who kill are somehow indefencable. I don't, I thikn most of them have the right to knock the cr@p out of those who destroy their homes.
Yes, one may support one or the other, but supporting both seems pretty damn funny, and kind of hypocritical. That would be like rallying for black rights on monday while supporting people who wear KKK hoods on tuesday, but to each his own.

     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 09:09 PM
 
Making fun of southern people is acceptable to the very same folks that accuse others of being hate-filled and ignorant.

Very interesting how that works.

Makes a lot of people appear to be hypocrites.

The same ones that are.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 09:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Making fun of southern people is acceptable to the very same folks that accuse others of being hate-filled and ignorant.

Very interesting how that works.

Makes a lot of people appear to be hypocrites.

The same ones that are.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 09:33 PM
 
.
( Last edited by Face Ache; Sep 12, 2004 at 10:24 PM. )
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 09:40 PM
 
dc you are getting fanboys now too.

Want me to make you a pennant?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 09:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
What do redneck girls say after sex?


"Get off, Paw, I cun't breathe!"
Dammit, if'n you're gonna be a biggot, get it right...

What do redneck girls say after sex?

"Get off, Paw, yer breakin' my Marlboros!"


Sheesh.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 10:02 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm going to be an @sshole and suggest to the mods that they cease MacNN's abetting of wholesale copyright violation by the user whose alias is "dcolton." Not only is he not properly attributing or linking a source, but he is going beyond plagiarism into wholesale copyright violation. Might I suggest a paring down of the posts to the first and last paragraphs of the articles copied? That is, unless dcolton wishes to edit his posts himself.

Linking to your source with a few excerpts to tantalize the reader is sufficient, thank you. Or are you too lazy to read that stuff for yourself so that you know what's worth excerpting and what's not?

BlackGriffen
He is stealing from the Traditional Values Coalition. At least he's not paying them.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 10:28 PM
 
Zim and dc can join these guys:

Calling the approval of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts "the straw that broke the camel's back," a group of Christian activists is in the beginning stages of an effort to have one state secede from the United States to become its own sovereign nation. "Our Christian republic has declined into a pagan democracy," says Cory Burnell, president of ChristianExodus.org, a non-profit corporation based in Tyler, Texas. "There are some issues people just can't take anymore, and [same-sex marriage] might finally wake up the complacent Christians." Burnell is leading the charge for a peaceful secession of one state from the union, and after originally considering Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina due to their relatively small populations, coastal access, and the Christian nature of the electorate, Burnell says South Carolina has been selected as the target location.
Chosen target
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 10:49 PM
 
umletmethinkaboutitno.
fanboy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 10:55 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Such hostility. Perhaps you would like to discuss the issue instead of being so damned defensive!
What is there to discuss?

I think homosexuality is a normal state of existence, a personal facet, no different from skin color, hair color, or height.

You seem to think that homosexuality needs to be discussed, analyzed, and picked apart to somehow a) have it condemned or b) have it defended. I see no need for either one of those things to take place regarding individual homsoexuals or homosexuality in general.

Sorry, but end of discussion here.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 10:58 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
What is there to discuss?

I think homosexuality is a normal state of existence, a personal facet, no different from skin color, hair color, or height.

You seem to think that homosexuality needs to be discussed, analyzed, and picked apart to somehow a) have it condemned or b) have it defended. I see no need for either one of those things to take place regarding individual homsoexuals or homosexuality in general.

Sorry, but end of discussion here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:00 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I won't have a debate about something I don't consider amoral or perverted. Its hard to find common ground when we can't even agree on how to classifiy the behavior in question.
Originally posted by dcolton:
Perhaps if you and you comrades were civil, we could find common ground. Instead, you guys just hurl the insults and point your stinky little fingers.
Umm, he IS being civil. So am I. And he is correct, in order to logically discuss an issue you need to have a reference point where both sides are in agreement. Since your fundamental beliefs about homosexuality are diamterically opposed to those of MacGorilla, there is no possible way the two of you can debate/discuss anything.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:03 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Still waiting for anyone to address the issue. I wonder why you all are avoiding the issue.
Maybe I am missing something here, but what *issue* are you looking to address (which I take to mean debate and or/argue about)?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:12 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Okay, I believe that homosexuality is a choice.
OK. You have established this as a beginning point.

So, if you believe it is a choice are you trying to posit that it is a "wrong" choice that somehow should be remedied?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:16 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Iceland Boy:

Depends how you want to define mental disorder. I definately think that two guys licking each others balls and engaging in anal sex is quite perverted. I think they can be helped not only by the mental health industry, but they can be helped by family and friends, church, and a chasity belt
So, what about two women licking each other's c*nts and engagin in fisting? Is that equally perverted as male-on-male sex? more perverted? less perverted? And why.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:19 PM
 
I thought men and women were supposed to have sex.
Damn, I guess I was wrong.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
dc you are getting fanboys now too.

Want me to make you a pennant?
Yes...Please!
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:37 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He is stealing from the Traditional Values Coalition. At least he's not paying them.
Nope...not stealing. Just spreading the truth. When I am done with the series, I will post the link....wait, now I don't have to...you did it for me, thanks simey!

#10 Pedophiles: Another part of the Gay agenda
In August, 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas over the state's criminal sodomy law involving children. The ACLU is defending Matthew Limon, a homosexual who committed sodomy against a 14-year-old boy in 2000. At the time of his crime, Simon was 18 years old. The ACLU is claiming that Limon's conviction is unconstitutionally discriminatory because the penalties for sodomy with a minor are different than for heterosexual sex with a minor.

Kansas Attorney General Phill KIine says the fairness of Limon's sentence should be a state legislative issue, not a constitutional one. According to Kline, "If the ACLU wins in the thrust of their arguments, it means the state has no right to say that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 13-year-old child." Kline also fears that an ACLU victory will make it difficult for the state to enforce laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality, and other sexual perversions.

The effort to abolish "age of consent" laws has been a long-time goal of homosexual activists. The 1972 Gay Rights Platform, for example, called for the abolition of all laws prohibiting sex with children. The platform demands: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."

In September, 1995, three homosexual activists published an essay entitled, "The State Of Gay Liberation" in Guide, a homosexual publication. The essay was authored by North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) co-founder David Thorstad, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Richard D. Mohr, and San Francisco journalist Bruce Mirken.

Thorstad, of course, is a life-long pederast and homosexual activist who clearly describes the important linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia. In a speech given before a homosexual group in Mexico in 1998, Thorstad said: "Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization-and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture-ancient Greece and the Renaissance." (David Thorstad, "Pederasty And Homosexuality," NAMBLA web site)

Fellow author Professor Richard Mohr, is a homosexual activist who is an advocate for same-sex marriage and has said he hopes that homosexual marriage will help define "monogamy" out of marriage altogether. (Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard, Aug. 4-11, 2003)

Bruce Mirken is a homosexual and San Francisco journalist who was arrested in 1998 for attempting to have sex with a 13-year-old boy he had contacted through the Internet. When he entered a Sacramento park to sodomize the boy, he was met by police who had been tracking his activities on the Internet. The charges were eventually dropped against him on a technicality.

Sexual Liberation For Children

Thorstad and Professor Mohr want sexual liberation for children and Mirken believes that AIDS activism is what will help perpetuate and strengthen the homosexual movement.

According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!

Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.

The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:38 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, what about two women licking each other's c*nts and engagin in fisting? Is that equally perverted as male-on-male sex? more perverted? less perverted? And why.
Yes
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:39 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, what about two women licking each other's c*nts and engagin in fisting? Is that equally perverted as male-on-male sex? more perverted? less perverted? And why.
I've never understood fisting. What's the point in messing up a nice box? Just doesn't make any sense...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:39 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
What is there to discuss?

I think homosexuality is a normal state of existence, a personal facet, no different from skin color, hair color, or height.

Studies are showing otherwise.

Sorry, but end of discussion here.
So, you wont be replying back?

K.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:42 PM
 
Yes, that was a sad story. I forgot where I read that from, but that's irrelevant.
It is disgusting what they did to the kid. That sort of thing qualifies for a lifetime of lockdown.
That story pissed me off so much when I read that. That's why the ACLU should be eliminated and the perverted group NAMBLA (which really is all about pedophiles) should also be destroyed. It is a threat to society.
But all of those NAMBLA guys are straight, right?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:44 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
But all of those NAMBLA guys are straight, right?
Of Courth!

     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:49 PM
 
Wasn't Mr. Garrison one of the dudes in that episode?
But NAMBLA is a perverted organization.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:50 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:


Umm, he IS being civil. So am I. And he is correct, in order to logically discuss an issue you need to have a reference point where both sides are in agreement. Since your fundamental beliefs about homosexuality are diamterically opposed to those of MacGorilla, there is no possible way the two of you can debate/discuss anything.
[/QUOTE]

Then what is the point of all of the other GAY IS GREAT threads? Is it okay to discuss as long as you can have an orgy of agreement while you stand in attention to perversion?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:05 AM
 
All I am going to add (as it always seems everyone is open minded except for the other guy) the following:

I really don’t have any problem with gay people. Its okay. What you do in the privacy of your own home is cool. If you want to have sex with your cat or your brother (legal age of consent is still a requirement), hey, that’s cool too. Just accept it for what it is.

There is something called Gender Identity Disorder (GID), when men are more comfortable in the opposite sex’s positions (wearing clothing and such). This is a fully documented disorder.

There is also a well documented disorder in which people prefer masturbation to having actual sex. Masturbating while “wanting” to have sex with another person is not a disorder, it’s a fantasy. But, lets say, having sex and wishing instead that you were masturbating is a disorder. Again, nothing wrong with that. Actually, that’s a disorder I WISH I had, would save me A LOT of money.

So is being gay. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, as there is nothing wrong with having a disorder. But, changing the name to make yourself feel “normal” is ignorance. People should not try to feel “normal” they should try to be themselves. If anything, people should have more tolerance for others with mental and physical disorders. Just as someone may have turrets, or GID, these people still deserve respect. Disorders are part of our personality. Hell, most of America has some kind of disorder. If you have ADD, then you cannot be angry because another person is gay.

But, sadly the gays do not want to see it this way. The honest truth, many gay people are the ones who are closed minded, along with the people who dislike them.

I have friends who are gay, and its all good. But they do have disorders. A disorder is doing anything away from the natural norm. “Wanting” to drink milk though your nose is a disorder. As when you are thirsty, drinking with your mouth is the natural process. BUT, drinking milk though your nose for a bet is not a disorder, because you do “want” to do it, but you “choose” to do it. I hope this makes sense.

The purpose of sex is to make children. If for some reason you “want” (key word want) to have sex with the same sex, which in turn has no chance of creating children, that’s okay, but then you have a disorder.

So, if you get attracted to having sex with men, and you are yourself a man, then you are truly gay, and have said disorder. Also, if you only want to have anal sex with woman, and prefer it to vaginal sex to the point, that you truly dislike vaginal sex and only wish to participate in anal sex, then you also have a disorder. Although not as far steeped as homosexuality “right playing field, just wrong ball” it is still a disorder. Which again is okay by me.

Tolerance works both ways. America should be more tolerable with those with disorders, and then gay people should admit that they have one. Then instead of selectively choosing what “life styles” are acceptable, we can get over all of our intolerances in one fell swoop. When people get over disorders, (hell, with how complex the human body is, something has to go wrong somewhere, I know my body and brain is not perfect) then things will be good.

Also, note disorders differ from personality differences. Being gay is a disorder, wanting to wear a blue tie when everyone else is wearing a red tie is not a disorder, that’s normal, and is also fine by me.

I am all open to opinions to my argument, so please add.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:18 AM
 
f you want to have sex with your cat or your brother (legal age of consent is still a requirement), hey, that’s cool too. Just accept it for what it is.
Nice post. TY. The only issue I have is with the above statement. Live and let live is an acceptable ideology, as long as the opposing lifestyle doesn't impose it;'s perversions on the general public and demand special rights. I don't believe having sex with a cat or your brother is healthy for the fornicators or society. It seems as if gays want an entropic world where doing what feels good is above and beyond any set of morals that is a catalyst for a productive and safe community.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:20 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Wasn't Mr. Garrison one of the dudes in that episode?
Yes, and he is gay.

But NAMBLA is a perverted organization.
Your point?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:21 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:

Then what is the point of all of the other GAY IS GREAT threads? Is it okay to discuss as long as you can have an orgy of agreement while you stand in attention to perversion?
In this "New, Modern" world, Good is bad Bad is good.

Get used to it.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:35 AM
 
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

I would expect nothing more from you. lerkfish. Someone disagrees with you, therefore they have issue. How convienient! Maybe you could post one of your conspiracy theories next time. You are quite talented at taking an obvious event and turning it into some kind of pseudo-intellectual theory that Bush is evil. But I guess that would be appropriate for this thread (bush is evil).
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

I think the idea is people naturally place a lot of thought on sex. It is either something that should be restrained, accepted, done in privet, shown on video, talked about in public, or only in closed doors, sung about in songs, or just avoided entirely.

Sex is what has made every man and woman in existence, so it is natural to be both fascinated and by and also, in a way, feared.

So, really, homosexuality hits home directly into the human psyche. Why? Why, would people behave in such a way? How they should act, and subsequently be treated is entirely dependent on how you choose to cope with sex.

If you were overly reticent about sex, you would hope others would be the same, and then may have anguish about those who are not just the opposite of you thinking, but also have another definition of sex then you.

Then again if you are all about getting your F-On, well it seems natural to you, and are probably also interested in what makes people like the same sex.

Hey, people are interested in sex, so it only seems natural that homosexuality be debatable.

As I said, I don’t mine gay people, although I do have my ideas on acceptable sexual behavior. If two dudes get into a relationship and stick with it, that’s fine by me, however I greatly dislike promiscuous living. I also believe that public displays of affection should be constrained to hand holding only. I would rather see two dudes holding hands then a dude and a chick kissing in public. There’s a place for everything.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:15 AM
 
Hi dcolton. Per your request, let's try to have a serious and civil discussion here.

It's hard for me to respond to what you've posted in full, because what you've presented are a massive number of truth claims. It's much easier to talk about the validity of an argument, with a specific conclusion supported by relevant and well-defined truth claims. In the interest of structuring our discussion, I'll make an argument and let's see where our disagreements take us.

First, I claim that the act of being gay does not damage our society or the individuals who are gay. So far, the only counterargument I have detected from you is that gays are more likely to be pedophiliacs. I dispute that, but for argument's sake let's assume that's true. What about the vast majority of gays who live out their lives without having any child molestation tendencies? If 99% of heterosexuals are not child molesters and 98% of homosexuals are not, it does not follow that being gay and being a pedophiliac are causally related. It could be a textbook example of "omitted variable bias," where some unobserved force causes certain people to have both homosexual and child molestation tendencies. That does not mean that all homosexuals are motivated by that force. Let's just prosecute pedophiles and leave everyone else be.

Second, insomuch that the first claim is true, I claim that it does not matter whether being gay is a "choice" or "natural" or "genetic" or whatever: gays should be free from harassment by the government, psychiatrists, or whoever else. They aren't hurting themselves and they aren't hurting others, and so they deserve no more trouble than a person who "chooses" or "is genetically programmed to be" a liberal, a conservative, or a pentecostal Christian (whichever of these you or I might dislike.)

Third, it would probably be in society's and the individuals' best interest for gays to be permitted to marry. The issues here are multifarious and complex, so let me summarize. (1) Gays should be encouraged to be in healthy, stable, and MONOGOMOUS, PAIRED, AND COMMITTED relationships, as I think we can agree that these are the best kind. The institution of marriage encourages that. (2) Maybe some people will come and ask for threesome marriages after gay marriage is allowed, but I have no trouble (and see no inconsistency) in saying "no" to that but "yes" to gay marraige. The key is monogomous pairing, to me -- that kind of relationship has special qualities, which we can show from a social scientific perspective. (3) Traditional man/woman marriage would not be devalued. Gays would have equal legal protection, but I fail to see how this breaks up existing marriages or makes marriage seem "cheaper" to the impressionable. The institution of monogomous paired commitment is there, and that's what I see as important -- not the sex behavior of those involved.

Well, there we are, a nice starting point. I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for. Let's see where this takes us... I look forward to an interesting discussion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:20 AM
 
I disagree. Marriage is an old institution, which has already been defined. It is a man and woman. They can have the legal (seeing someone in hospital), but they can't have marriage. Call it whatever the hell you want, it is no marriage.

The thing that bother me is when I hear about massive sex parties where getting AIDS is like a battle-scar and even arousing. How can anyone do that?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2