My revised opinion on homosexuality

nice post bro, you really back that up with hard evidence.

Why the fuck did you make this post? What made you think it was a valid entry into this discussion?
 
you said as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else...ever heard of AIDS? Anal sex is the easiest and most common way to spread the disease..more than vaginal sex or anything else. The anus is not meant to me stretched n shit such as during sex. This creates cuts and bleeding in the inside of the anus, making it incredibly easy to spread the virus.
 
Last I checked, lots of heterosexuals enjoy anal sex as well. There also isnt any conclusive evidence or reason to think that AID's would spread faster by one type of sex than the other. A womans vagina is pretty permeable as well to the virus, as is the glans of the penis. If you have sex with someone who has AID's, no matter what the type, theres a good chance of transmission.

So no, being gay doesn't hurt people more than being hetero.
 
I also find it funny how America states they are free yet we stil do not give them rights.

Also, last time I checked, Jesus was a man that loved ALL peoples, and wanted equal rights for all. Seems funny to me his biggest supporters are going against these very principles

Lastly, why does it matter to you? Let someone be gay if they want to. Doesn't involve you. Let someone make their own fucking choice on what sex they want to date

P.S. Most peoples in the pre-modern ages were bi-sezual. Some of our most famous historic figures are bi. I wonder when it took the turn to where we stand now.
 
many states do give them full rights - such as Vermont, which has gives gay couples civil unions, which entails the same responsibilities and benefits as a marriage. Massachusetts has gay marriage, as well.
 
I'm unsure about Californians status as of now, but even so, a vast majority of our country does not allow civil unions.
 
The reason that people don't want to allow same-sex marriage or civil unions IMO is because the status quo is that everyone is straight and has babies and lives a happy family life. Homosexuals break that barrier between normal and "different" and people don't want difference.

As long as it's not marriage and doesn't happen in a church it's fine with me.
 
but are still afforded the same rights, benefits and responsibilities, correct? Or am I misunderstanding your stance.
 
here is my opinion....being gay is a choice not a trait such as hair color, being gay is against everything......look at animals for example when say lions have a gay one in their herd they kill it......homosexuality is a choice not a trait...people might say that it is the way they were born but that is a load of happy horseshit.....look at it this way if everyone were gay/lesbian, the human race would become extinct due to no birth, so it is not meant to be that way
 
If one church wants to offer marriage to gays, that's fine and it's certainly nobody else's business, just like I don't have any business telling other people what they should believe.

There are so many different versions of christianity based on so many different interpretations of the bible that jesus and homosexuality aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm not religious and I look at these issues through my own lens, but religion does not necessarily equal bigotry.

I personally think all legal unions, whether they be gay or straight, should be governed by the same laws. A straight couple that wants to get "married" would submit the same paperwork as a gay couple. If the couple wants to do a religious ceremony of any kind, then they just have to find a church that will perform it. The ceremony itself would not have any legal significance.
 
Uh, hate to burst the bubble here, but animals can exhibit homosexual behavior just as much as humans. I haven't heard of the stuff about lions you cite.

Ok, so just because someone doesnt contribute to the propagation of the human race, we should treat them as abnormal? What about couples that are infertile or dont want to have kids? Fuck, besides that point, overpopulation is a problem, we dont need our species to get any bigger. As I've stated before, it is thought that homosexuality may be a natural control on population for humans, but whatever.

From the people I've known and talked to, its not a choice. Its what you are. Of course, thats just their word.
 
Dude, no one is saying that homosexuality is a trait, rather, that chemical imbalances in the womb or genetic mutation is the cause. Next, your Lion analogy makes NO FUCKING SENSE bro, pull your head out of your ass and you might be able to see the world a little more clearly. Why would someone or something knowingly choose a life of abuse and torture. I do like the idea that homosexuality could be a form of natural selection however. Homosexual tendencies are displayed throughout nature, and like you said, those that have these tendencies are weeded out to promote a more successful species. That concept might evade you though, if you can't accept something like homosexualtiy, there is no way you could accept what Darwin was talking about.
 
hey guys, I have a question.

Why would someone choose to be gay?

I'm going to assume that gay people manage to get more or less the same amount of enjoyment as straight people out of sex. So that's a draw. So, if being gay is a "choice", depending on how often one can make that choice, one might pick one or the other arbitrarily or even switch back and forth for some variety. In essence, one would become bisexual.

But let's assume, for your benefit, that it is a "choice" that can only be made once. At puberty, or whatever. We've already concluded that sex is a draw, giving us no reason to choose one or the other.

Little billy goes to "choose" one day, and he's thinking about it. He realizes that if he chooses to be gay, then he will be treated as an outcast and inferior human being by society. In addition, he realizes that he won't be able to have children with his partner (who he won't necessarily even be able to marry). Little billy, then, chooses to be straight. No offense to gay people, but in the context of society today and human reproductive biology, choosing to be gay doesn't seem like a choice anyone would make.

Maybe if society wasn't full of ignorant bigots, choosing to be gay might be a more attractive option. After all, it's more or less equivalent to a vasectomy (you can have all the sex you want without having to worry about getting someone pregnant), and some people don't like the idea of having children. But as it is, society is filled with people who let fairy-tale ideas of good and evil and sin and temptation and all that bullshit influence their opinion of their fellow human beings, who are not words in a book but instead are flesh and blood. I don't understand how people think like that.

Do you guys really think some people are born evil and immoral, and "choose" to be gay because of this? Do you really? Because otherwise I don't see how this freakishly ignorant picture of homosexuality could possibly exist. It makes absolutely no fucking sense to me.
 
Alright I'll try to be a little more civil, but you're barking up the wrong tree here bro. You do realize that the anti-homosexual comments that are getting thrown around here are way more insulting, than say, me pointing out that this kid has a lot to learn about life.

 
Human beings are natural organisms and some are gay (and other animals exhibit similar homosexual behavior), so how the hell isn't it natural, you stupid fuck?
 
honestly guys, i dont get why this is always such a big deal with everyone, unless you are homosexual, you really shouldnt have to worry about their problems, just stick to your own problems
 
Im not get aggro man, don't worry. I was just pointing out a fallacy in what he was saying. And if he does mean their problems in society, it most definitely does affect me. We all live in the same society, one where all genders/races/orientations should be treated as equals, and the fact that they aren't is a BIG problem.
 
um, did you miss the part in my response where i said if they act normal I could care less if they are gay? Thats kinda like me saying I don't mind or hate homosexuals, just the flaming ones. Just in case you didn't notice.
 
I thought that's exactly what I said. gay people are stereotyped as flaming homosexuals, hitting on all guys and having lisps.
 
Why don't you contribute something to the thread, buddy.

Let me explain what I said, since you or the other person doesn't seem to get it:

I'm saying how gay people are stereotyped and what he said was how he hates the flaming homosexual: the stereotypical gay person. Big Gay Al, Brian's cousin from Family Guy, they both have lisps and wear pink and think they're hillarious and they're always happy.
 
Why does it matter to you. It should be fine with you even if its marriage. And the status quo is shit. It seperates us by personal belief. And there are so many straight people that never have babbies.

Also, to the guy that asked for examples of bisexuals, plato, Alexander the Great, Aristophanes, I could go on and on. in fact, they mandated same-sex relationships with youths who were coming of age for all adult men, so long as the men eventually took wives and produced children. They believed it to make a person more loyal and overall give them more strength.
 
I'm perfectly fine with civil unions. Marriage is a religious aspect and in most major religions, especially christianity, same-sex MARRIAGE is not approved of. Also, it promotes separation of church and state if they are allowed civil unions.
 
Wait, I don't really get what you're saying.... Does this mean that aethiests and agnostics shouldn't be allowed to marry either, or am I just taking it way out of context??? Anyways, I don't think there should be a difference in marriage and civil union. Equal rights should result in equal oppurtunities.
 
Well technically athiests and agnostics wouldn't have any need to marry through a church.

It's a vow of holy matrimony. But nowadays in society it's too lax to be thought of as that which is why people are taking the entire concept of gay marriage to a whole new level.

This is why it's such a debate.
 
Ohhhh yes I can. Here is every accepted definition of the word "natural" in the English language.

1. Part of existence: the contrast between the natural and the supernatural

-Moral and immoral acts are natural.

2. The natural world, excluding humanity.

-Here, human homosexuality is unnatural, but so is heterosexuality. Or, arguably, since both hetero and homo relations exist between animals, both are natural. Either way, it doesn't support your point.

2. That which is Normal

-Leads to mean commonly accepted, which doesn't mean 'right' or 'moral'. Also, homosexuals may not be in the majority, but are common throughout history. Black people are in the minority, too.

3. Having to do with the physical world

-Pertains to the distinction between the physical and the mental. Not particularly relevant.

4. Present or existing from birth; ie natural hair colour. All evidence so far states that this is the case with homosexuality.

5. That which works

-A pragmatic definition; does it function. Procreation comes into play. However, by this token, sex must be unnatural in any way that does not produce children. Procreation is not the only function of sex. If sex for the sake of pleasure is justifiable, then it should be so in all cases.

6. That towards which we are inclined

-Not relevant, we are inclined towards both moral and immoral acts, and some are inclined towards homosexuality just as others are towards heterosexuality.

7. Conformity with the laws of nature

-No laws of nature are broken through homosexuality, but the same is true of all immoral acts; therefore, this is not relevant. For you geniuses out there that want to argue with this, laws of nature refers to things like the law of gravity.

... So yeah, that didn't work out too well for you there.
 
well, my point is that i hate the ones who fit the stereotype, not gay people in general. I thought my post said that. Whatever
 
How is this different than hating say, a stereotypical jewish person, or the black guy that robs liquor stores? Its insensitive discrimination any way you look at it. Stereotypes are fine, but hatred towards a population, even if they do fit the stereotype, is never justified.
 
I never said I hated the population, if you look at my original response it may start with me saying I hate gays, but immediately is qualified by the fact that I dont actually hate gays, just the ones who are annoying, bitchy, and act like 15 year old paris hiltons times ten. I don't care about sexual orientation, all I care about is how someone acts. And flaming homosexuals bug the hell out of me so I don't like them. And I don't really think thats a stereotype, cause I'm not lumping all gays into one category.
 
why wouldent you just say that you hated annoying bitchy 15 year olds?

does it really matter if they are gay or not?
 
cause the topic was about gays, so i thought i would say gay people are cool, as long as they arent annoying as fuck, but i guess my repsonse didn't make that clear t. In reality I don't like anyone who annoys me, same as everyone, no matter the color of their skin or sexual preference.
 
I have a question too.

Why would someone choose to be shy? It isn't fun. Shy people tend to be excluded; shyness isolates them from people who might otherwise be their friends.
 
if you think people chose to be gay, go respond to when and how you chose to be straight in my thread

people might be shy for many reasons, they could be afraid of rejection, afraid that if they were to try to make friends they would be rejected and that would be worse than being alone

they could be afraid of failure, afraid that they'd exspose themselves to others and become vunerable. It might be the case that they have low self estem and wouldent want to have the attention brought upon themselves becaues they don't think they are worth being payed attention to.

shyness isn't an emotion, or a feeling, it's an action (or lack there of), you do not chose your emotions and feelings, those just happen, what you do chose is how to act upon those feelings and emotions. The way you act is determined by how you percieve things. Your perception of being isolated might be overuled by some other perception of someother outcome of being overt

 
Do you think people choose to be shy?

I used to be pretty fucking shy when I was a little kid, and believe me it wasn't a choice I made. Ask anyone who's shy, who has trouble meeting people or expressing themselves. Ask them if they chose to be that way.
 
I don't think people choose go be gay. I haven't done enough research on the subject to make such a pretentious assumption. And I have a couple gay friends who say it is not a choice. And I don't recall ever making the choice to be straight at any point in my life.

My association between shyness and homosexuality was intended to point out that simply because the "choice" to be gay (or shy) does not make pragmatic sense, it doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a choice.

A better analogy would be murder. It rarely makes sense to kill someone. But it would be ignorant to say, "well why would anybody want to kill someone? The killer obviously didn't make a choice."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top