El Sitherino Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by narfblat Those who disagree-I may offend you, but this offends me more! The religious fanatics are right that the tide of immorality must be stopped, but their methods are wrong. werd. Originally posted by narfblat Children are prosecuted for praying, by people who claim it interferes with their rights. ? do you have any proof? or any news articles to prove children are PROSECUTED for praying. Originally posted by narfblat People say free speech allows you to burn the flag, but not say the pledge to it in schools. uhmmm.... the pledge is actually forced upon, usually anyone NOT saying the pledge gets in trouble. Originally posted by narfblat People abort pregnancies that they never should have started. Marriage, an institute of religion, is being perverted by people. perverted by who? and the day civil unions get people to allow join tax filing, is the day marriage will be a religion only thing, so far you have to be MARRIED to file taxes jointly (atleast here in Texas) and what do you mean they should have never had a pregnancy? that is the point of an abortion, for all you know they could have been raped (sex against someones own will) or the condom could have broke, the pill could have been a dud. There are lots of things that go wrong, not everything works properly, I myself have broken a few condoms, thankfully I have never gotten my gf pregnant due to the fact we take it seriously, she takes pills I wear a condom. Originally posted by narfblat Homosexuality is seen as perfectly acceptable, when it is actually either a genetic illness or a weakness from God we are supposed to overcome. Any speech against those who commit these immoral acts is considered hatefull, yet their speech toward us is perfectly acceptable. Illness my foot. There is no deterioration caused by being homosexual, no physical reprocussions to it, it isn't a weakness except when involved in this bigotous society that plagues the western civilization. Any homosexual that slanderizes a christian is also commiting disrespectful acts and in my book is the same as someone calling them a "fag" or other worse insulting terms. Originally posted by narfblat People say that evolution disproves the Creation, but there is no concrete evidence of either happening. (and maybe evolution was God's method of creation. Who knows?) Originally posted by narfblat We are considered fools for taking things on faith, yet people are willing to believe anything a scientist tells them. uhmmm.... maybe some people but myself and a few people I know here would rather TEST things to see the outcome, instead of following blindly, because we refuse to believe something just because someone tells us it is so, this is why we aren't christian or jewish, or islamic or any other religion, because we refuse to be blinded sheep led by a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by narfblat Those who disagree-I may offend you, but this offends me more! The religious fanatics are right that the tide of immorality must be stopped, but their methods are wrong. Children are prosecuted for praying, by people who claim it interferes with their rights. People say free speech allows you to burn the flag, but not say the pledge to it in schools. People abort pregnancies that they never should have started. Marriage, an institute of religion, is being perverted by people. Homosexuality is seen as perfectly acceptable, when it is actually either a genetic illness or a weakness from God we are supposed to overcome. Any speech against those who commit these immoral acts is considered hatefull, yet their speech toward us is perfectly acceptable. Marriage should not be an institute of religion. Anyone who views it as such needs to change their classical views and get with the times. Marriage does not have to be the joining of 2 people in the eyes of god. It's just the joining of 2 people. A lot has changed since the times of the bible. Things are socially acceptable now to everyone that would have had people screaming bloody murder 2000 years ago. Times have changed. You have to keep in mind that, while the bible was supposedly inspired by God, it is also a historical document and therefore must be taken in this historical context. People 2000 years did not posess the knowledge we now posess. If they did, I'm sure the bible would have been quite different. These people who want to outlaw gay marriages KNOW they can't ban homosexuality. Homosexuality IS socially acceptable, and those who dont consider it so are a minority. Unfortunetely, the minority, as in most cases, are the ones who are vocal on the issue. And homosexuality, a weakness from god they have to overcome? Give me a break.... Yeah, sure, so god sits up there and goes "Now, I'm going to make YOU attracted to men... just to test you.... so let's see if you can overcome it. It's going to feel perfectly natural for you, but youre going to be persecuted for it until you change your demonic ways". I'm sure if we surveyed people, we'd find that pretty much every person stricken with this vile weakness from god is unable to overcome yet. Yet, god is giving this weakness to more and more people? Surely he must see his little test isn't working. And until you have a doctorate in genetics, and find me the gene on the humane genome that controls sexuality, you may NOT refer to it as a genetic disorder. Countless studies have been conducted on the matter, and many websites claim that a homosexuality gene was found. Many of these sites are christian websites, but then again, there is also a slew of christian websites who state that it is NOT genetic. If you're going to have an organised religion, wouldnt you think it'd be organised in terms of opinion? Therein lies the problem. 2000 year old views on life and what's socially acceptable have little to no relevance in our society in many cases. Sure some of the bible's morals and stories are great, and show us whats right and wrong in terms of how we treat eachother. But should we REALLY take everything they thought 2000 years ago as truth? as applicable today? But as the bible is not going to be rewritten, and christians will never agree on one set of events, no viable solution is in sight to the debacle they face. They'll just continue ignoring that their religion is divided on countless issues, and go on doing their own thing. Also, the speech against "your group" tends to be a backlash to your harsh views on things such as abortion and homosexuality, and your discrimination and lack of understanding. Give me 1 good reason why gay people shouldnt be allowed to be united in the eyes of the law. Not god, the law. Most of these homosexuals arent going to do the big elaborate wedding, in your oh so sacred church. They just want to go to a celebrant down the down and get their legal marriage papers. Why is that so bad? People say that evolution disproves the Creation, but there is no concrete evidence of either happening. (and maybe evolution was God's method of creation. Who knows?) We are considered fools for taking things on faith, yet people are willing to believe anything a scientist tells them. Are people wrong for believing scientific fact from a modern world, over a 2000 year old book? Evolution doesnt disprove god created life, but it directly contradicts the genesis creation theory, which many christians take as a literal account of the events which took place. Faith tells us nothing new about the world. Science is an ongoing learning process. To stop learning and put everything down to "because god made it so" isnt good enough these days. People deserve to know where they came from, and if science offers that, then let them damn well have it. Your god is offering no new ideas. He's letting you read the ones from millenia ago. Science is now. Science is telling you what happened. Science has factual basis. Why is it wrong to put that above faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kale Jerre Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by manoman81 As for the gay marriage thing, that is their thing/decision (Sorry, I really think it is a decision. I chose my girlfriend. I chose to date females. People choose who to be with.) You didn't choose to be heterosexual--your DNA is coded for it. If if was really just a 'choice' for you, then it would imply that there was an equal chance that you would have chosen to date males but you just flipped a mental coin and chose females. Are people really that ignorant? Yes. Yes, they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kale Jerre You didn't choose to be heterosexual--your DNA is coded for it. Bzzzzzzztt... incorrect. Prove it and I'll give you a dollar. It's NOT genetic. Everyone to date whose ever conducted a decent test on it has concluded this. It's a brain thing, not a gene thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kale Jerre Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 1) This is from people who think we evolved from monkies. Yes, some of the scientists that say homosexuality is genetic in origin are 'Evolutionists'. Some of them are 'Creationists', though. 2) We have free will, and can make whatever choices we want to make. Yes, we have free will and we have freedom of choice. However, God made us what we are, to include the obvious genetic variations we see among mankind. If simple deductive science shows that homosexuality is genetic (too much 'female' DNA in a man and vice versa) then clearly it's not simply a matter of choice for a gay man since he has the genetically-ingrained attraction to men that a 'normal' woman has. 3) If it is an aboniation to God? Please don't take my statement out of context. I know that according to the Bible it is an 'aboniation' (your spellling) to God. My point is that if you accept that homosexuality is genetic (and you would have to be conveniently close-minded not to do so) and our genetics are a product of God's will, then it paints Him in the light of a bully who sets some people up to 'fail' His 'standards of behavior' as set down in the Bible. I could go at this all day. I'm sure you could, but it's not really relevant to the arguments I made since I never questioned that according to the Bible homosexuality is an abomination to God. I'm only exercising my free will to question what God had in mind when He allowed for variations in our DNA to lead to homosexuals who would be ostracized for not meeting His standards of behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Look, here's the thing. Okay, I'm not a homosexual so it's not my place to say whether or not it's genetics or choice. I simply don't know. But I do know this: You do get to choose who or what you insert your penis into. Likewise, you also get to choose whether or not to have a penis inserted into you. So if the AIDS virus is something you can calmly blow your after sex cigarette smoke into the face of, by all means, go right ahead. But don't tell me you had no choice. And please spare me the details. Also, why aren't we pardoning pedophiles, necrophiliacs, horse doinkers, etc, with the excuse "their DNA is coded for it"? Well why not? Do they have a choice in who they are attracted to? And if not, then do they have the choice not to engage in their favorite sexual passtimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 1) This is from people who think we evolved from monkies. Incorrect. Evolution states that we, along with monkeys, chimps, apes, etc, evolved from a common ancestor. There's dna evidence to back it up. There's fossil evidence. Why didnt god tell us in his precious book that he was going to throw us off with these things? Was it his will to create evidence that directly opposed the beliefs of his religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kale Jerre Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by GonkH8er Bzzzzzzztt... incorrect. Prove it and I'll give you a dollar. It's NOT genetic. Everyone to date whose ever conducted a decent test on it has concluded this. It's a brain thing, not a gene thing. I'll get back to you with my sources. I just hope I can find the information on this from Scientific American online since I don't have the relevant physical issues of that magazine anymore. In return, I would ask that you provide a brief list of your sources as well. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kale Jerre Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Look, here's the thing. Okay, I'm not a homosexual so it's not my place to say whether or not it's genetics or choice. I simply don't know. But I do know this: You do get to choose who or what you insert your penis into. Likewise, you also get to choose whether or not to have a penis inserted into you. True, we all have that level of choice regardless of sexual orientation. However, for homosexuals doing that with the same sex 'feels right', just like it 'feels right' to me as a heterosexual man to be with a woman. I'll admit that this is an overly simplistic example (which doesn't take into account those that have mental conditioning that has led them to 'experiment' with homosexuality), but it does fit. Also, why aren't we pardoning pedophiles, necrophiliacs, horse doinkers, etc, with the excuse "their DNA is coded for it"? Well why not? Do they have a choice in who they are attracted to? And if not, then do they have the choice not to engage in their favorite sexual passtimes? I haven't seen any research reports on this so I can't say with any certainty that it is or isn't genetic (although I would be inclined to say that there could be genetic factors involved). What I can say is that such sex isn't going to be consensual (and accordingly why I think it's wrong) as 1) no child is mature enough to make that kind of decision, 2) dead people can't say yes or no and 2) horses can't say yes or no, either. The key word here is consensual as applied to sexual congress between 2 adult humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kale Jerre I'll get back to you with my sources. I just hope I can find the information on this from Scientific American online since I don't have the relevant physical issues of that magazine anymore. In return, I would ask that you provide a brief list of your sources as well. Thanks! Sure, but if you so much as mention Xq28, i'll laugh. Many people quote Dean Hamer's work on their websites, but then go on to say that he concluded something totally different from what he actually did. Evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is genetic is either biased or outdated, but either way, its scarse. Also, if homosexuality was genetic, it would be a genotype that would be being wiped out by natural selection, as homosexuals tend to not mate, to pass it on, so to speak. It certainly doesnt offer an evolutionary advantage being gay, in terms of survival and assurance that offspring will be produced. It would have to be a genetic mutation, which would most likely be becoming less and less prevalent. On the contrary, it's being more and more prevalent, due to social acceptance. They've done tests on twins, monozygotic and dizygotic, to determine whether or not its genetic. They claim to have found that there's a 25-75% chance that if 1 monozygotic (identical) twin is gay, then the other will be. They fail to take into account that these children were probably raised in pretty much the same environment, exposed to the same things as a child. It's more likely that their sexuality is based on how the life is lived, what theyre exposed to, how they things about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kale Jerre I haven't seen any research reports on this so I can't say with any certainty that it is or isn't genetic (although I would be inclined to say that there could be genetic factors involved). What I can say is that such sex isn't going to be consensual (and accordingly why I think it's wrong) as 1) no child is mature enough to make that kind of decision, 2) dead people can't say yes or no and 2) horses can't say yes or no, either. The key word here is consensual as applied to sexual congress between 2 adult humans. I believe what capn was trying to say is that if theres a gene that codes for men being attracted to men, why wouldnt there be one for animals, children, etc. He's not talking about the act of sex with them, but the mindset they have that makes then WANT to. This isn't about men having sex with men. This is about men being attracted to men. I know plenty of gay male couples who dont have sex. It's just something that happens to people within their life that makes them desire the companionship of someone of their own gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeleneRayne Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kain *reads news article* Ha...hehe...BAH HAHAHA(laughing for half-hour)HAHAHAHAHA!!! Whew, I love it when religion makes an ass of itself so I don't have to. Yes yes, I agree. Yeah Kain! *cheers* I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by Pie™ So you choose who you feel attracted to? How convenient I know I know. It sounds much worse than what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Also, why aren't we pardoning pedophiles, necrophiliacs, horse doinkers, etc, with the excuse "their DNA is coded for it"? Well why not? Do they have a choice in who they are attracted to? And if not, then do they have the choice not to engage in their favorite sexual passtimes? That is just the weirdest way of putting it, but somehow it makes a lot of sense. If you say it is a brain thing, then you are kind of saying it is genetic. And I'm not homosexual (obviously) and I cannot say what it is like to be one. I agree with the statement about not understanding why men or women are attracted to the male form (if you look at us, a good portion of us are not exactly renaissance art myself included ) I don't mean to push my ideas on anyone and please don't think I am trying to do so. It's just something that I can't believe to be any thing other than a choice. If a person feels more comfortable/happy with a person of the same sex, cool. That's their deal. It's not my place to judge. If they feel that they should be able to marry whom they want, ok. Why not. What's stopping me from marrying whom I want (other than the money to do so)? As for the evolution stuff, I believe in it, even as a Christian. God created the heavens and the Earth in 7 days, blah blah blah. We all know that side of it. However, what if something on Earth changed (whether it was God's will or something else)? Climate change, flooding, draught. Something changed an area. Animals in that area needed to adapt in order to survive. That I do believe. Did humans crawl out of the ocean, become primates, and finally to the form that we are in? I don't know. Possible stretch there only because no one has been able to prove the first stage. Whether you like it or not, our closest relatives to the animal world are the chimps. My dad came across an article a while back talking about the creation of the world and how long it may have taken. It was written by a professor in Israel. He proves scientifically and mathematically that 7 days may not have been 7 24-hours time spans. If i can find it I'll post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by manoman81 Whether you like it or not, our closest relatives to the animal world are the chimps What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by narfblat Children are prosecuted for praying, by people who claim it interferes with their rights. Incorrect. Not in thiscountry. But this is a fallacy that the so-called religious right perpetuates to convince others to side with them. In actuality, it is adults who are prosecuted (usually in the form of administrative action) because, as teachers or school administrators, they forced prayer to children. And they deserved the prosecution/administrative action. Originally posted by narfblat People say free speech allows you to burn the flag, but not say the pledge to it in schools. As long as the pledge is in its original, secular form (without the supernatural crap) then this, to my knowlege, has never been disallowed. Originally posted by narfblat People abort pregnancies that they never should have started. Smart people do. Originally posted by narfblat Marriage, an institute of religion, is being perverted by people. Marriage is not an institute of religion. It's an institution of humanity. A look at every culture of the planet, past and present, to which we have enough evidence to make inferences demonstrates this. People marry in spite of religion and frequently in absence of it. They always have. Originally posted by narfblat Homosexuality is seen as perfectly acceptable, when it is actually either a genetic illness or a weakness from God we are supposed to overcome. Superstitious nonsense. You don't like it so its either a "genetic illness" or "a weakness from god." This kind of statement is reminescent of the justifications for racial segregation in our not so distantant past. Originally posted by narfblat Any speech against those who commit these immoral acts is considered hatefull, yet their speech toward us is perfectly acceptable. Thats because the real immorality is the discrimination and segregation of a population of people. Accepting this sort of behavior, even in small doses, can lead to attrocities such as ethnocleansing and genocides. History has demonstrated this human failing time and again. Originally posted by narfblat People say that evolution disproves the Creation, but there is no concrete evidence of either happening. One would have to educate oneself on the subject to see the evidence. The evidence is, in fact, very concrete. We know decidedly more about evolution than we do a lot of things that we accept already, such as the structure of the atom. What evolution proves about creation myths (christianity isn't the only creation myth, btw) is that humans will attempt to explain what they see with whatever knowlege they have. Christian creation mythology has clear roots in earlier Assyrian and Sumerian as well as Babylonian myths. Originally posted by narfblat We are considered fools for taking things on faith, yet people are willing to believe anything a scientist tells them. Becuase science shows the tests of hypotheses. Faith and religion are based in the supernatural and, therefore, not testable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Also, why aren't we pardoning pedophiles, necrophiliacs, horse doinkers, etc, with the excuse "their DNA is coded for it"? Well why not? Do they have a choice in who they are attracted to? And if not, then do they have the choice not to engage in their favorite sexual passtimes? We're discussing CONSENTING parties. All those that you listed are either not old enough to consent (via. the law) or they can't outright speak "let's do it" such as the corpse and the horse. Also, homosexuality only invovles the two consenting parties because they consented to engage in whatever ways of passion they chose. Pedophilia is sex with an underaged CHILD, a non consenting party, it also brings about mental illnesses due to the trauma of this event. Necrophilia I can't really state that it hurts someone, but it is desecration of a body. (that's about all I have <_<). Sex with an animal, is not only odd, but it is a non consenting party, and can cause not only pain for the animal, but should it be a horse, it can cause great pain for the human in this situation. Overall you cannot compare an act of 2 consenting adults to the acts of non-consenting children/corpses/animals. Also, AIDS isn't a gays only affliction. so.... yeah. have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy But I do know this: You do get to choose who or what you insert your penis into. Likewise, you also get to choose whether or not to have a penis inserted into you. So if the AIDS virus is something you can calmly blow your after sex cigarette smoke into the face of, by all means, go right ahead. But don't tell me you had no choice. And please spare me the details. That statement could be considered bigoted if only because it appears to assume that homosexuals are male . I realize that you probably weren't thinking about that, but it does show a little bit of bias in your position regarding homosexuality. It is a fact that there are many homosexuals who are celibate, monogomous, etc., so that STDs and AIDS are not an issue. In fact, AIDS affects more non-homosexuals than homosexuals. Also, at least a full half of all homosexuals is female. Moreover, diseases and unwanted pregnacies afflict heterosexuals at a higher rate than homosexuals. Originally posted by CapNColostomy Also, why aren't we pardoning pedophiles, necrophiliacs, horse doinkers, etc, with the excuse "their DNA is coded for it"? First, homosexuals don't compare to pedophiles, et al. Second, there has been no conclusive data that show either to have genetic origins. There are data, however, that demonstrate developmental issues that can afflict those that engage in non-consensual acts of sexual deviation, though these too are inconclusive since there are documented cases (twin studies, etc.) where those exposed to similar, same or more severe developmental environments do not resort to the same behaviors. But when you start discussing sexual deviation, one has to decide where to draw the line. It can be agreed that dressing up as tinkerbell and letting your partner dress up like CPT Hook (and then letting her do things with the hook... like swing from the ceiling) is deviant. But there are many who take opposing sides as to whether oral sex is deviant. I think the deciding factor to deviance will ultimately rest on consensual acts between able-adults. That rules out pedophelia, necrophilia, and equestrian interludes in the moonlight, but not homosexual contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by GonkH8er I believe what capn was trying to say is that if theres a gene that codes for men being attracted to men, why wouldnt there be one for animals, children, etc. He's not talking about the act of sex with them, but the mindset they have that makes then WANT to. This isn't about men having sex with men. This is about men being attracted to men. I know plenty of gay male couples who dont have sex. It's just something that happens to people within their life that makes them desire the companionship of someone of their own gender. That is exactley why I carefully chose my wording to include "PEDOPHILES" and NOT child molestors. There is a difference. I'm glad someone caught that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by manoman81 Whether you like it or not, our closest relatives to the animal world are the chimps Actually, our closest relatives to the animal world are genetically chickens. Seriously. No joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Actually, our closest relatives to the animal world are genetically chickens. Seriously. No joke. That might answer many things. Do you have anything to back that up? I would seriously like to read any research on that. I've honestly never heard that before. Originally posted by Kain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by IG-64 Actually, our closest relatives to the animal world are genetically chickens. Seriously. No joke. Patently false. No joke. The genetic distance to rabbits from Homo sapiens is considerably closer than chickens. From H. sapiens to Oryctolagus cuniculus (a species of rabbit) is 33.4%. From H. sapiens to Pan paniscus is 1.7%. The distance from H. sapiens to the order Galliformes (where chickens are) is about a full 3%. To the uneducated eye, 3% might seem small, but within the field of genetics its rather large. These distances were compiled using nucleotide sequencing which you can do on your own at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker That statement could be considered bigoted if only because it appears to assume that homosexuals are male . I realize that you probably weren't thinking about that, but it does show a little bit of bias in your position regarding homosexuality. It is a fact that there are many homosexuals who are celibate, monogomous, etc., so that STDs and AIDS are not an issue. In fact, AIDS affects more non-homosexuals than homosexuals. Those are good points, to be sure. And I won't lie, like most heterosexual males, two women together doesn't bother me in the slightest. Whereas two men is...another story. But as for AIDS being more prevalant in nonhomosexuals, yes, that IS a fact. But while we're tossing around facts, here's one for you. If a man and a woman, (both virgins, neither are drug using vein tappers, neither have had a blood transfusion, neither were born with AIDS, etc...) have sex, the worse that can happen is the woman becomes pregnant. Now if you have the exact same scenario, but replace the woman with another man, well I don't need to explain the rest, do I? So in summary, one perpetuates our species, the other perpetuates it's demise. I wouldn't say I'm bigoted, because I don't really care who does what. If people want to do something they know full well kill them, I say "hurry up". I smoke cigarettes. Something I believe is far more addicting than penis. And yes, it's eventually going to kill me if I don't stop. If you told me to quit, would that make you a bigot? No. I choose not to engage in homosexual acts, I don't find a wise mind in people who do. But it's my opinion, which counts for nothing, and furthermore, it's none of my business. And that doesn't make me Adolf Hitler, ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 If two people are happy, I don't have a problem with how they go about achieving happiness. As long as this does not involve the killing of innocent civilians, I'm fine If two homosexuals love each other, and are happy, it is not my place, or the State's to interfere with that happiness. I couldn't care less whether it was genetic, or out of choice, if two people love each other, why should it matter what sex, colour etc.. they are? And if anyone dare suggest "I find the idea disgusting" - I'll f**king tell you what I find "disgusting": entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts. If you find homosexuals "offensive and disgusting" you need to f**king wake up, get a grip on reality and realise that there is waaay more s**t in the world to worry about, rather than interfering with two people's love and happiness. If I could convince the rest of humanity of this, I could die an extremely happy man. Life's too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by The_One And if anyone dare suggest "I find the idea disgusting" - I'll f**king tell you what I find "disgusting": entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts. If you find homosexuals "offensive and disgusting" you need to f**king wake up, get a grip on reality and realise that there is waaay more s**t in the world to worry about, rather than interfering with two people's love and happiness. Life's too short. What's really disgusting is the fact that if a homosexual says he can't imagine a "straight" relationship, and he finds the very thought of straight sex repulsive, he's just speaking out, or defending his way of life. But if a straight man says the same thing about a homosexual relationship, he's a bigot or a homophobe. The problem is, everyone's scared to death to say what they think, because of being judged or branded a racist, bigot, etc, by people who can't stop screaming about how we shouldn't brand people or judge them. Everyone wants to be soooo PC. Or they want to appear that way, at least. You never hear about anything they actually do to help these people they supposedly champion the causes of, other than run their mouths. I want to see some of you people march in a gay pride parade in downtown San Fransico. Better yet, I want you to build a f**king float, and stand on it, if you're so gung-ho. That won't happen though, because that requires some form of personal sacrifice. That wouldn't be convenient. It's only convenient to defend people when you have the annonimity of the internet. And I assume your refernence to "entering a foreign country and trying to tell them how to do things, and then abusing their population in all manner of outrageous acts" is pointed at the United States. Because as everyone knows, our biggest allies in the Iraq war, the UK, or British EMPIRE, has never done anything like that. There wouldn't even be a f**king United States if not for the UK's greed, so that comparison is pretty empty, and further pointless and off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.