Homosexuality

[Hooverfox]

Whats your opinion on Homosexuality? I have plenty of freinds, mainly female who are homosexual and it doesnt bother me I think that its fine for them to live their lives in the way they want to without a load of prejudice. What your opinion?

[Rebbel of The Underground]

I also have a gay friend, this time male. Before I met him I really had no formed opinion of my own, being 11 'n' all. But since I have stopped going along with all the homophobes I once "agreed with" and now have my own solid opinion that homosexuality is fine. Being gay doesn't stop a man or woman being a nice person, and thats what really matters, no? In actual fact, in my experience, I have found that homosexuals tend to be far nicer people than straights, except homophobes, obviously. But, since I have had my own strong opinion on homosexuality I have taken up many new things. Like when I hear someone making a joke at the expense of gays, I ask if they'v ever met a gay. Usually this shows how immature they are, but I can't do much more as I was once like them.
Afterall, "gay" also means happy...

Pabli

[Invader Zim]

One of the most irritating kind of people I have had the unfortunate pleasure to communicate with are those are against the idea of gay marrage, homophobes the lot of them. Gay people should be afforded complete equality.

[SonofRage]

I think the last thing people should be complaining about his there being more love in the world.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Anyone who is against gay marriage ought to be beaten by a mob of scantily clad homosexuals armed with rubber hoses. :D

[(*]

I couldn't care less if people are gay or straight. Makes no difference.

[canikickit]

It makes a difference if you're trying to chat them up.
I don't think I'v ever spoken to a gay person, at least not in real life.

[Fidel Castro]

I have no problem with homosexuals personally. I have met some gay people who are rather annoying as they seem to think it's neccessary to remind me of the fact they are gay and tell me how fantastic it is to be gay constantly, imagine what a dick I would be if I constantly reminded a gay person that I am streight and told him all the time how fantastic it is to be streight.

So long as they don't push their views on me, then they can do whatever they want.

[honest intellectual]

Threads are boring when everyone agrees. I think that people are too entrenched in their sexuality and try too hard to assert it. One would have to be a particularly charmless person to define oneself solely in terms of their sexuality.

(* is one post off commandante status, exciting stuff.

[blackemma]

Everyone ought to be bisexual... If they want to be.

[cormacobear]

I personally find homosexuality repugnant. But what business is it of mine what consenting adults do in private. In regards to gay marriage I and all my homosexual friends agree with the Idea of "equal but seperate", a different definition, same rights.

and yes I do have several homosexual friends. They're aware of my views and I'm aware of theirs. Just because I may think some of their Ideals are misguided doesn't make them or myself a bad person.

[apathy maybe]

Considering homosexuality is just as natural as hetrosexuality, anyone who claims that it is not natural would probably also try and claim that the earth is flat or similer rubbish.

[Blackberry]

Good FAQ on homosexuality: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

[peaccenicked]

Homosexuality does nt exist and neither does hetrosexuality.
Sexuality is dead. Everything has became gothic and miserablist.
Black is the new leopard skin. Black is the new pink. Style has taken over content, bad style. Life has become so coarse and matter a fact that romance is dead. Marriage is a pretence.
Bad manners is the fashion of the moment, be rude to everyone,it is the only way to gain respect.
no one can escape it,it tarnishes everybody, the world is becoming totally desexed,commodified, put in the perjoritive boxes of the commercialised world.Sexual fantasies are becoming nightmares, reflecting the worlds confusion.
God bless the folk that believe they are immune.
Lets get our humanity back.
Vive la revolution.

[shakermaker]

homosexuals...I have nothing against them.

[gawkygeek]

yeah, ppl who don't want to allow homosexual marriages are just retarded fucks that really don't understand what marriage is, its a spiritual bond between two ppl that love eachother and want to live their lives together as one. god damn asshole government, and the fucking pope, (for all those who are or were catholics as i once was) they don't even understand what they are saying anymore, they just say things to do it

[Domino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:10 AM
Sexuality is dead.

Amen to that. What does attraction have to do with gender? I mean, what's so wrong with liking someone of your same sex, it's stupid to oppose it.

[honest intellectual]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:10 AM
Homosexuality does nt exist and neither does hetrosexuality.
Sexuality is dead. Everything has became gothic and miserablist.
Black is the new leopard skin. Black is the new pink. Style has taken over content, bad style. Life has become so coarse and matter a fact that romance is dead. Marriage is a pretence.
Bad manners is the fashion of the moment, be rude to everyone,it is the only way to gain respect.
no one can escape it,it tarnishes everybody, the world is becoming totally desexed,commodified, put in the perjoritive boxes of the commercialised world.Sexual fantasies are becoming nightmares, reflecting the worlds confusion.
God bless the folk that believe they are immune.
Lets get our humanity back.
Vive la revolution.
I'm all kinds o' confused. Could we get an explantaion of what you meant by that?
Are you suggesting that someone, such as my good self, who does not limit sexual attration to one sex has lost their humanity? That there is something "miserablist" about not confining oneself to heterosexuality or homosexuality?

[''electra'']

I have nothing against gay people but i don't think it's right two homosexuals to raise a child together.That's a selfish action.I mean it's not good for the kid.And of course i disapprove of those assholes who rape little boys...they should burn in hell! :angry:

[Domino]

Originally posted by ''electra''@Dec 27 2003, 09:29 AM
I have nothing against gay people but i don't think it's right two homosexuals to raise a child together.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, moraly. I support it, but don't recommend it. I agree it's selfish. A kid must grow with a father and a mother. But I don't think it's wrong for gay people to adopt really.

[cubist]

hmms gay adoption is an interesting one, i see no reason why not but the kid is in for a rough time through school,

[dannie]

nothing wrong with bi/homosexuality

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 01:51 PM
hmms gay adoption is an interesting one, i see no reason why not but the kid is in for a rough time through school,
my mom came out when i was in high school and i wasnt harassed

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by ''electra''@Dec 27 2003, 10:29 AM
I have nothing against gay people but i don't think it's right two homosexuals to raise a child together.That's a selfish action.I mean it's not good for the kid.And of course i disapprove of those assholes who rape little boys...they should burn in hell! :angry:
you are fucking stupid if you think gay men who have adopted children or children from a heterosexual relationship want to have sex with them. you are following the same mentality those christian fundalmentalist assholes use to take away kids from gay parents. how the hell is it selfish for two gay people to raise a kid?

[cubist]

truthaddict fairplay i ain't gonna argue, my opinions are based on where i am from they aren't very apreciative of homosexuality and the child could get alot of grief

[BOZG]

I have nothing against gay people but i don't think it's right two homosexuals to raise a child together.That's a selfish action.I mean it's not good for the kid.


I support it, but don't recommend it. I agree it's selfish. A kid must grow with a father and a mother.



Echoing truthaddicts's point how the fuck is it selfish for two homosexuals to raise a child? And how exactly can you prove its not good for the kid? If it's because the child may suffer from teasing, then maybe none of us should be socialists because I'm pretty fucking sure every person here has been abused for it at some stage in their lives? Maybe we should also abort disable children because they might be abused too. Other than that I can see no reason why it's unfair on the child.
As for a child growing up with a father and a mother, should we kill children who may only have one parent or is an orphan because they must have both parents of course. Should we have schools on how exactly to be the perfect parent because different parents use different methods, just as in many cases the mothers method or parenting or emotions are different from the fathers? Well fuck it, maybe I should just take an overdose now because I only have one parent and I MUST have both parents otherwise it's unfair on me.

[BOZG]

i see no reason why not but the kid is in for a rough time through

I don't think anyone here would disagree that a child with same sex parents will get some abuse in school, just like overweight kids do, redheads do, skinny kids do etc etc. The aim is to end this prejudice, not just leave it to exist and try and pretend it's not there if we can't see it by not putting a child into that situation.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Yeah you cant go round pussy footin about coz they might get harased.

I think its fine.

[''electra'']

you are fuking stupid if you think gay men who have adopted children want to have sex with them What the fuck are you talking about?I never said that!I was talking about the kidrapers not about the homosexual parents.Of course they don't adopt children to have sex with them..sth like that could never cross my mind!
how is it selfish for two gay people to raise a kid? ok mr.smart guy read carefully what i'm about to write.You think a kid who is being raised by two homosexuals can have a normal life?A friend of mine who lives in Germany was raised by two gay men.I'm not saying these men were immoral or whatever.I actually met them and they were really cool.They raised my friend properly they tought him to have ethics and values in his life.But the boy was completely confused during his childhood&puberty.He didn't know what the normal thing was.To be gay or to be straight?His parents were gay but all his friends ' parents were straight.This would mean that his parents were different,they were not like the others.So he started feeling ashamed of them,he didn't want to invite friends at home and he spent half of his life doing therapy.He wanted to have a mother like all the other kids but he didn't and he felt so weird about that ,like he didn't belong to this world .When he was asked as a kid what his mom's name was, he was like''i got 2 dads''and everyone used to make fun of him.And he was the one who told me that what these 2 men did to him was selfish.So don't act like you know everything cause you know shit!You had a normal life ,you didn't get through all this fucked up thing !Yes it's selfish i don't take it back and i don't care whether you all here agree with me or not!They destroed his life ,they had no right to do that, no matter how good their intentions were.They love him like he was their own son there's no doubt about that,but they love themshelves more!

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 04:17 PM
I don't think anyone here would disagree that a child with same sex parents will get some abuse in school, just like overweight kids do, redheads do, skinny kids do etc etc. The aim is to end this prejudice, not just leave it to exist and try and pretend it's not there if we can't see it by not putting a child into that situation.
Precisely, homosexuals should be able to adopt children and to end the discrimination those who discriminate should be punished. It will become normal for homosexuals to have adopted children and unacceptable to persecute children who have homosexual parents.

[Anarchist Freedom]

im personally 110% fine with gay relationships,marriage,adoption i dont care whatever suits your fancy i guess.



:che:

[Domino]

Originally posted by ''electra''@Dec 29 2003, 11:23 AM
You think a kid who is being raised by two homosexuals can have a normal life?
Yes.

I somehow said I thought it was a bit selfish refering to how the kid would be teased if he had two mothers or two fathers. But I take it back. I did say before I have nothing against it, I love homosexuals (more than most people) and if they want to adopt they should do so. I think a kid raised by two parents of the same sex wouldn't be any different to the rest of the kids (though kids may not see it that way)

[che's long lost daughter]

:P I have nothing against homosexuality. I also have lots of gay friends (males) and I just love them and actually, one of my best friends is gay. I think gays are really smart and talented and funny. I have lots of gay teachers and I consider them the best ones. I even think that I might end up marrying someone who is gay or if not and I married a straight guy, I would feel better if I find out that my husband is cheating on me and the other party is a gay man rather than another woman...well, that makes him gay too. I am also not agains gay marriage or gays raising a kid...I wouldn't mind a bit if I was raised by gays

El gays vive! ;)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by ''electra''@Dec 29 2003, 01:23 PM
A friend of mine who lives in Germany was raised by two gay men.I'm not saying these men were immoral or whatever.I actually met them and they were really cool.They raised my friend properly they tought him to have ethics and values in his life.But the boy was completely confused during his childhood&puberty.He didn't know what the normal thing was.To be gay or to be straight?His parents were gay but all his friends ' parents were straight.This would mean that his parents were different,they were not like the others.So he started feeling ashamed of them,he didn't want to invite friends at home and he spent half of his life doing therapy.He wanted to have a mother like all the other kids but he didn't and he felt so weird about that ,like he didn't belong to this world .When he was asked as a kid what his mom's name was, he was like''i got 2 dads''and everyone used to make fun of him.And he was the one who told me that what these 2 men did to him was selfish.So don't act like you know everything cause you know shit!You had a normal life ,you didn't get through all this fucked up thing !Yes it's selfish i don't take it back and i don't care whether you all here agree with me or not!They destroed his life ,they had no right to do that, no matter how good their intentions were.They love him like he was their own son there's no doubt about that,but they love themshelves more!
Riiight, we all know that it is "natural and moral" to be stright, and to question ones sexuality is absolutely unacceptable. Go back to the hole you crawled out of electra.

[truthaddict11]

What the fuck are you talking about?I never said that!I was talking about the kidrapers not about the homosexual parents.Of course they don't adopt children to have sex with them..sth like that could never cross my mind
yes you did, you said it was selfish for gay people to raise kids then you said you want those who fuck little boys should burn in hell, you were basicly saying gay men are pedophiles. most child molesters are heterosexual.


Yes it's selfish i don't take it back and i don't care whether you all here agree with me or not!They destroed his life ,they had no right to do that, no matter how good their intentions were.They love him like he was their own son there's no doubt about that,but they love themshelves more!

did you ever think he may be the one who had a problem with his parents being gay? my mom came out 5 years ago and it hasnt affected me nor have my friendships changed they accepted my mom being gay. my 8 year old brother doesnt have any problems seeing my mom and her girlfriend together. how is it selfish for gay people to love and care about children do you somehow think that heterosexual couples are "more qualified" to raise children?

[truthaddict11]

So don't act like you know everything cause you know shit!You had a normal life ,you didn't get through all this fucked up thing

Yes I do because MY MOM IS GAY! You dont have any clue how much shit I had to deal with from my Christian Fundalmentalist relatives.

[honest intellectual]

Originally posted by (*@Dec 21 2003, 01:06 AM
I couldn't care less if people are gay or straight. Makes no difference.
Unless they're celebrities - then it's dish, dish, dish!



electra, what you're talking about is the exception to the rule. Everybody has problems with their parents, either they're too rich, too poor, too liberal, too conservative, too, puritanical, too religious, too gay or whatever. Like Son Of A Gun said, there is no such thing as the perfect parent. It does not mean the child's life will be ruined. Yes, often a child will have certain problems if their parents are gay, but they would also have problems if their parents were poor, or black, or Arab, or whatever. Should these people not be allowed have children?

[Rastaman]

as long as they dont bug me im fine.. i mean does it affect me in any way?

[''electra'']

yes you did you said it was selfish for gay people to raise kids Yes,but i explained why i said that
you were basicly saying gay men are pedophiles NO NO NO&#33;YOU GOT ME COMPLETELY WRONG&#33;I DIDN&#39;T MEAN TO SAY THAT&#33; As the matter of fact a friend of mine is gay and he&#39;s one of the finest people i know.I love him very much and i support him every time a fucking asshole makes fun of him.And i agree with you that most child molesters are heterosexual.I was talking about the homosexual child rapers when i said that, but i didn&#39;t mean that all homosexuals are child rapers.I repeat I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST GAY PEOPLE and if anyone here thinks i do ,he simply got me wrong&#33;I&#39;m sorry if i didn&#39;t express myshelf correctly.Honestly i&#39;m sorry... <_<
my mom came out 5 years ago Yes, but at least you were raised by a mother and not by two men&#33;You had a mother in your life&#33;It&#39;s not the same.I&#39;m not talking about your situation. Things would be different if you had never met your mom and if you were raised by two strangers&#33;
what you&#39;re talking about is the exception to the rule yes maybe you&#39;re right.I only said that it is selfish,because i know that this friend of mine who was raised by two gay men suffered very much in his life.If i had not met him, i would have said too that i&#39;m fine with homosexuals raising a kid together.But ok maybe that was an exception.

[BOZG]

Things would be different if you had never met your mom and if you were raised by two strangers&#33;

Back to the point I made about single parent families. What if someone&#39;s mother dies during child birth? Should we just kill the child there and then because it can&#39;t be &#39;normal&#39; and can&#39;t live a decent life?

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

what if someone&#39;s mother dies during birth ?Should we just kill the child there and then because it can&#39;t be normal and can&#39;t have a decent life? You&#39;re pushing it too far comrade..don&#39;t put words i never said in my mouth.I didn&#39;t say sth like that so please don&#39;t misinterpret my quotes.I only said things would be weird if one was raised by 2 homosexual strangers.Please don&#39;t say anything about killing babies because their mom died at birth, you make me feel very bad :( and you make me look like a psycho.Please,please do never say that again&#33;I never never never meant that&#33;

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Lol, we aren&#39;t making you look like a psycho, you are doing a fairly good job of that yourself.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

didnt John Lennon&#39;s mother die when he was just a little kid? he turned out to be a great guy and musician.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 11:56 PM
Anyone who is against gay marriage ought to be beaten by a mob of scantily clad homosexuals armed with rubber hoses. :D
A AGREE WITH YOU EXCEPT FOR THE VIOLENCE

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Rubber hoses aren&#39;t supposed to leave marks :P

[Rastaman]

i think gays should be able to get married and all.. but their own kid? its defying nature..i its not even possible really. At one point in evolution nature decided that only straights can get kids.. maybe because the child must experience the feminin and masculin charecteristics of humans...

[BOZG]

don&#39;t put words i never said in my mouth.I didn&#39;t say sth like that so please don&#39;t misinterpret my quotes.

You might as well have said it. You said that a child must have both parents and of opposite sexes...the situation I mentioned is one where the child has only a single parent and of a single sex. What&#39;s the difference?



I only said things would be weird if one was raised by 2 homosexual strangers.

And it would be incredibly normal if the child was raised by 2 heterosexual strangers? Unless homosexuals are somehow different to us all (a homophobic outlook), then there&#39;s no difference in same sex or opposite sex couples adopting. Or should we just outlaw adopting?

[The Feral Underclass]

What is selfish about wanting to raise a child? I wish to raise my own child through surragate mother, hopefully with a friend who will remain a part of my childs life.

People seem to think that hetrosexual couples are capable of raising a child. Why? Why are a man and a women more capable of raising a child than two men or two women. It isnt logical. As long as there is plenty of love then what&#39;s the problem.

As for being teased of bullied at school, kids are bullied and teased for what ever reasons whether its for wearing glasses or having ginger hair. As long as you raise your children to be confident, open minded and strong willed then they will be able to deal with bigoted, misinformed kids.

Of course it is important for a man to have a male role model and a girl to have a female role model, but gay people have families and friends. Having a child is a serious matter and things such as these would be dealt with. For me it would be with a female friend who would remain a part of their life. For others who do it anonymously they may have a friend to act as a "godmother" or "godfather" or may have brothers or sisters to take an active role in their childs life. What loving, caring family is going to deny that, and if they do deny it they dont deserve to have a child, gay or straight.

As for being adopted, surly it is more benificial for the child to be in a loving and caring enviroment with two people who love them than to no be.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

There is no reason that a child needs specifically a male or female anybody in their live. The gender of a person has no significance about anything. A woman is capable of everything a man is, and vice versa. (Except perhaps breast feeding). A couple of men or women are just as capable of loving and raising a child as a hetero couple. I would be damned (if I was gay) if I couldn&#39;t adopt a kid because the state thought it was too much for some snot nosed brat to make fun of him/her.

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

BornOfzapatasGuns i&#39;m sorry we can not understand each other.I&#39;d really appreciate it if you read my replies more c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y&#33;Unfortunately i don&#39;t think i have the courage and the patience to explain the same thing to you again and again just because you cannot understand what i&#39;m saying .I expressed my point of view once -you misinterpret my words-i told you you are wrong -i explained why-end of discussion.I&#39;m sure you&#39;re a smart guy so don&#39;t act like you were not,ok?Bye-bye&#33; :P

[captain anarchy]

i think homosexuality as well as bisexuality and transexuality is a beautiful thing and it is acceptable i blame the bible for homophobia befor chistianity was around we all were considered equal. then the bible and chistianity came around and said things like you shall not lay next to a man as you would a women and things like be fruitfull and multiply.

i think its a great thing to have homosexuality and bisexuality in the world. almost all my friends are bisexuals and i am to. most of my friends are girls though. even my fiancee is bisexual she doesn&#39;t mind my bisexuality and i don&#39;t mind hers.

and for all the people who close their minds and are tired of hearing about homosexuality silence equals death cause the more its dicussed the more of a chance it will become acceptable in society and then it will open doors for eqaul rights for gays.

[Xprewatik RED]

transexuality


Wait what?

[captain anarchy]

yeah transexuality. its where a person gets a sex change they need to have equal rights to.

[RedCeltic]

I have been wanting to reply to some of the very ignorant comments made in this thread by this “Electra” person, however she seems to deny things she had said… so instead I’ll just post my own thoughts on the subject.

Homosexuals are people who want to have a consensual relationship with another ADULT of the same sex. Believe it or not, that doesn’t always involve a sexual relationship, but often does. Heterosexuals often overly focus on the sexual part of any gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered relationship without thinking or realizing that love can actually be generated between these two individuals.

They focus on the fact that they themselves could never possibly picture themselves having romantic feelings for someone of the same sex, and the fact that they are turned of by the thought of homosexual sex.

They also make the leap into the ‘logic’ that if they personally are not attracted to the same sex, than those who are, than are sexual deviants… and than they equate all sexual deviants as the same and therefore homosexuals must also be child molesters.

The fact is that like heterosexuals, many homosexuals are respectable upstanding members of their communities. Many are professionals in stable and loving same sex relationships. People also think that homosexuals are all promiscuous…. Which sure many are, and so are many heterosexuals.

The fact of the matter is that there are many homosexuals involved in long term monogamous loving relationships who would like… just as much as any family… to raise a child in a loving and nurturing environment.

For anyone to say that they would deny a couple that meets all requirements of adoption, the same right to adopt as a heterosexual couple is criminal in my opinion. It is kin to saying that you would rather see the child raised as ward of the state, jostled by one abusive forsterhome or orphanage to another… and give them a higher chance to be abused, turn to crime, drug abuse and suicide than they would have had being raised by two people of the same sex that care for their well being.

You will also find that there have been countless numbers of children raised in same sex households in the past… children of previous marriages or other circumstances, and most problems that occur in their lives come from outside the home.

Two homosexual parents do not make a child grow up to be gay. In fact two homosexual parents are more likely to respect the child’s choice of sexuality than two heterosexual parents. Just because the parents are gay, does not mean they want the child to be gay also. Could there ever be a gay couple who would try to mold their child that way? Sure, heterosexuals still don’t hold a monopoly on assholes.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and just as anyone with a heterosexual preference, or bisexual preference they have just as much chance of being moral or immoral as anyone else, and taking the question of their sexual identity out of the equation, all perspective adoptive or forester parents are still subject to the same scrutiny which believe me is difficult as it is without this bias.

It’s not easy for any couple to adopt a child or become a foster family, so making it unnecessarily more difficult is just cruel all around.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 09:45 PM
i think gays should be able to get married and all.. but their own kid? its defying nature..i its not even possible really. At one point in evolution nature decided that only straights can get kids.. maybe because the child must experience the feminin and masculin charecteristics of humans...
its called addoption a person should be allowed todo it no matter what their sexuality

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:00 AM
Homosexuals are people who want to have a consensual relationship with another ADULT of the same sex.
not all homosexuals are adults does that mean boys and boys or girls and girls cant date

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:13 PM
not all homosexuals are adults does that mean boys and boys or girls and girls cant date
um... I was really gearing that post to the adoption question. Sure kids are able to be attracted to the same sex and should be allowed to date... I don&#39;t think kids gay or straight should be having sex.. but that&#39;s a diffrent issue lol...

I also don&#39;t think that kids should be allowed to adopt kids... call me old fashioned but....

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

sorry I missunderstood you there

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

Oh really?And what exactly did i deny?Tell me&#33;I don&#39;t think i denied anything, i only explained some previous words of mine ,which have been misunderstood.If sb misinterprits my quotes what am i suppose to do? Admit sth i&#39;ve never said?I&#39;ve been accused of saying &#39;&#39;most gay men are child molesters&#39;&#39;and &#39;&#39;we must kill babies if their mother dies at birth&#39;&#39;and other stuff like that i didn&#39;t say.I only said that it is selfish 2 homosexuals to raise a child together - i never denied i said that-and i brought an example to justify my point of view.But when sb mentioned &#39;&#39;this might be the exception&#39;&#39;i answered &#39;&#39;Yeah maybe you&#39;re right&#39;&#39;sth that shows that i&#39;m not absolute and that i don&#39;t exlude the case my previous opinion to be wrong.I was sure i had completely clarified my point of view and that the ones who had misunderstood me realised the true meaning of my words ,since i don&#39;t consider them to be stupid.And suddenly you appear and start making silly comments and questions ,accusing me of the same things again .I don&#39;t think i&#39;m obliged to reply to stupid quotes like yours,but since there are still people who cannot understand some simple things, i&#39;m going to do it one more time-let&#39;s hope it&#39;s going to be the last&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
many homosexuals are respectable upstanding members of their community I completely agree
people also think that homosexuals are all promiscuous Well i&#39;m not one of those people
most problems that occur in their lives are outside the home You said it yourself.&#39;&#39;Most&#39;&#39; of them.Not all.That doesn&#39;t mean that everything that happens in their home doesn&#39;t affect them.
two homosexual parents do not make a child grow up to be gay Of course not.But the child gets confused about his sexual preferences -exactly like my friend did.
could there ever be a gay couple who would try to mold their child that way? I don&#39;t know if there could &#39;&#39;ever be a gay couple who would try to mold their child that way&#39;&#39;all i know is i never mentioned anything relative so stop asking me silly questions like this one
making it unnecessarily more difficult is just cruel all around Trust me it doesn&#39;t get any more difficult than it already is

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

Satisfied now RedCeltic?If still not ,it&#39;s not my fault it&#39;s your IQ&#39;s fault&#33;You can reply to any of my&#39;&#39;ignorant&#39;&#39;comments if you want to.But make sure you write sth smart ,because if you are about to ask sth silly again or if you are going to accuse me of things i never said i won&#39;t reply.I&#39;m not obliged to explain the same things again and again&#33;I&#39;M FED UP&#33;

[BOZG]

Originally posted by &#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;@Jan 5 2004, 03:35 PM
Satisfied now RedCeltic?If still not ,it&#39;s not my fault it&#39;s your IQ&#39;s fault&#33;You can reply to any of my&#39;&#39;ignorant&#39;&#39;comments if you want to.But make sure you write sth smart ,because if you are about to ask sth silly again or if you are going to accuse me of things i never said i won&#39;t reply.I&#39;m not obliged to explain the same things again and again&#33;I&#39;M FED UP&#33;

&#39;&#39;we must kill babies if their mother dies at birth

I never said that you said that. My point was that by your logic, if a child needs both parents, male and female and that&#39;s why gay couples should not be allowed adopt, then you can apply that logic to single parent families and prevent that parent from having a child.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by BornOfZapatasGuns+Jan 5 2004, 05:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BornOfZapatasGuns @ Jan 5 2004, 05:49 PM)
&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;@Jan 5 2004, 03:35 PM
Satisfied now RedCeltic?If still not ,it&#39;s not my fault it&#39;s your IQ&#39;s fault&#33;You can reply to any of my&#39;&#39;ignorant&#39;&#39;comments if you want to.But make sure you write sth smart ,because if you are about to ask sth silly again or if you are going to accuse me of things i never said i won&#39;t reply.I&#39;m not obliged to explain the same things again and again&#33;I&#39;M FED UP&#33;

&#39;&#39;we must kill babies if their mother dies at birth

I never said that you said that. My point was that by your logic, if a child needs both parents, male and female and that&#39;s why gay couples should not be allowed adopt, then you can apply that logic to single parent families and prevent that parent from having a child. [/b]
Comrade Born,

There is a difference.

One is a case of a family with single-sexed parents..... the other is a single parent family.

The former has the possibility of instiling the idea and influencing the kid ....that....homosexual is something natural and ok for the kid. (Take note that I m not saying homosexual is un-natural, ok ? ;) I m talking about how the kid would comprehend the situation of his/her single-sexed parents. ) But, when he grows up he/she might be confused as most people are hertosexual but his/her parents are not.

The latter has the possibility of engaging in opposite-sex marriage.
..... I guess this is what Electra is trying to articulate or would answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I also read in this thread that kids get teased for various reasons (wearing glasses, ginger hair, etc) , therefore as long as you raise your children to be confident, open minded and strong willed then they will be able to deal with bigoted, misinformed kids.

I think this might be too of an optimistic opinion, since the nature of the kid is in question. Upbringing is undoubtedly an important shaper of the personality/character of the kid, but the kid&#39;s own capability to deal with opinions should also be noted, right?
so, should we avoid these kind of problems ------ problems that the adopted kid will face through his/her entire life? We have to care about the rights of the gay couples too, shouldn&#39;t we?

In my opinion------&#62; Intensive, sensitive and heartful care should be given to the kid if the gay couple decides to do so. Gay-right holders should not be TOO confident and merely emphasizing that: because they have the rights and adequate intellect, they can raise a kid absolutely normally and without pressure. They have to be open-minded when people wants to guide or give them advice ..... and I too think that general people should help gay couples if there they really need or seem to need help.

Afterall, we are living in a society~ The majority is hetrosexual, but I do believe that the gays and les should have the right to what they want too, in an egalitarian sense. But as mentioned, they have to acknowledge the problem that will arise in doing certain acts, as in this case, to raise an adopted child.


P.S. I don&#39;t know why, I have no problem in following Electra&#39;s line of reasonings and standpoints.

[RedAnarchist]

edited

[Fidelbrand]

I have heard of this idea before and i think it is plausible since sexual preference can be a matter of tendencies for some people. :castro:

[BOZG]

therefore as long as you raise your children to be confident, open minded and strong willed then they will be able to deal with bigoted, misinformed kids

I haven&#39;t noticed anyone say that. There&#39;s a difference between raising the child to be confident to be able to deal with the abuse, while not getting to the root cause and trying to erase the root cause so the child does not have to deal with it.



One is a case of a family with single-sexed parents..... the other is a single parent family.

Point taken but I still completely oppose the idea that there&#39;s ANYTHING wrong with single-sex adoption.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:42 PM

therefore as long as you raise your children to be confident, open minded and strong willed then they will be able to deal with bigoted, misinformed kids

I haven&#39;t noticed anyone say that. There&#39;s a difference between raising the child to be confident to be able to deal with the abuse, while not getting to the root cause and trying to erase the root cause so the child does not have to deal with it.



One is a case of a family with single-sexed parents..... the other is a single parent family.

Point taken but I still completely oppose the idea that there&#39;s ANYTHING wrong with single-sex adoption.
It was The Anarchist Tension who said that.

Ye.. excuse me for confusing you. I was just philosophizing when i was writing. Erasing the root cause is not what i intend to propose, since in the latter sentences, I wrote to express the importance of the protection and freedom of gay rights... thence, in the latter paragraphs, i laid out my view on the issue.


Point taken but I still completely oppose the idea that there&#39;s ANYTHING wrong with single-sex adoption.

Personally, I wouldn&#39;t put it under an analysis in terms of right or wrong. I think single-sex parents should rationally notice the possible problems for the adopted kid(s) and the lay public should do their best to help and/or to understand.

[RedCeltic]

Satisfied now RedCeltic?If still not ,it&#39;s not my fault it&#39;s your IQ&#39;s fault&#33;

Whoahhh&#33; I don&#39;t know who the fuck you think you are but I didn&#39;t post in this thread for an IQ test... expecially from some kid who was born when I was in high school.

What I ment was that I did not wish to jump into the middle of the argument you had ongoing with Born of Zapata&#39;s Guns.

My post was not directed at you but as I said, was a statement of my thoughts on the subject.

You need to CALM THE FUCK DOWN in a hurry, throwing a hissy fit is no way to win an argument... we have enough Self righteous spoiled brats on this board without your help.


You said it yourself.&#39;&#39;Most&#39;&#39; of them.Not all.That doesn&#39;t mean that everything that happens in their home doesn&#39;t affect them.

No situation is ever perfect, even among heterosexual families.


Of course not.But the child gets confused about his sexual preferences -exactly like my friend did.

It&#39;s perfectly natural to question one&#39;s sexuality. To say that homosexuals shouldn&#39;t be permited to adopt because a child may become confused, as if saying that single moms shouldn&#39;t raise children because a child may think that is the only option for a relashionship.


Trust me it doesn&#39;t get any more difficult than it already is

What are you saying than? That you are opposed to making it less difficult?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Gays raising children is selfish? Of course it is - the act of having a child is by definition a SELFISH act because it asks no consent of anyone but the parents who make a unilateral choice to introduce a new life for their own gratification - no matter what kind of genitalia you like to play with - that just doesn&#39;t come into it.

--- G.

[revoevo]

I think that the ideas of a family are changing with the times. Gay couples are becoming more and more accepted, and hopefully gay marriage will soon by legal. After all, if it doesn&#39;t infringe upon any one else&#39;s rights, why should the government make it their concern?
I believe if two gays are in a stable and loving relationship, they should be able to adopt a child.
My family is friends with quite a few gays, and I know each and every one of them would make just as good of a parent as a straight man or women. In fact, in my experience (and apparently many others&#39;) homosexuals are more caring and open minded individuals than many heterosexuals.
I would also like to point out in electras story where her friend was confused about his sexuality because his parents were gay. Has it ever occured to you how many homosexual teens are confused about their sexuality because their parents are straight? Or how many heterosexual teens are confused about their sexuality in general, with no outside cause? The social barriers of what&#39;s "acceptable" and "right" need to be broken. Human love is a beautfiul thing no matter who its directed at, sexual or not, platonic or romantic. If a man can love a woman and they can love a child, why can&#39;t a man love a man and they love their child? Isn&#39;t love what&#39;s important in a family?
I also believe children could benefit from the diversity, if it was explained to them properly.
And another thing: many, many families with heterosexual parents are dysfunctional. If two people believe they can raise a kid in a stable, loving relationship, then no one should stop them. The bottom line is no one, especially not the government, should be allowed to tell anyone else how they can or cannot raise a family. What should it matter so long as the children are loved and cared for?

[RedCeltic]

I would also like to point out in electras story where her friend was confused about his sexuality because his parents were gay. Has it ever occured to you how many homosexual teens are confused about their sexuality because their parents are straight? Or how many heterosexual teens are confused about their sexuality in general, with no outside cause?

Exactly&#33; It is perfectly natural for teens to question their sexuality, and since there are more heterosexual parents than homosexual ones, it is quite often the case that it is the homosexual growing up in a heterosexual family that is confused about sexuality and often supresses their true sexuality in order to be accepted into what they view as normal sexuality.

If a couple raising a child (heterosexual or homosexual) make the mistake of not talking about sexuality to their child, they are bound to become confused about these things.

Personally, I told myself as a teen that homosexual feelings that I had experienced were to be supressed because I didn&#39;t want to become some "freak" and face having to explain to my parents. Today I realize I have those fealings, although they are just there not acted on... I call myself bi these days.

And I still think my parents did a great job raising me, even though we never talked about sexuality and I had to figure all of it out myself.

[&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;]

OK in my last post i lost my patience completely but i guess the same would have happened to anyone if he/she had been constantly accused of things he/she never mentioned.Red Celtic first of all i must tell you that if i were a right-wing i wouldn&#39;t be a member in &#39;&#39;Che-Lives&#39;&#39;.And what makes you say that anyway?Am i right -wing just because i have a different point of view?We can&#39;t all think the same way.Everyone of us got his own personality.Unlike some people here ,who might call themselves marxists but on the other hand can&#39;t stop attacking to others just because they dare to have some doubts,i respect it when sb expresses a different opinion from mine.But i hate it when i am being insulted&#33;And that&#39;s exactly what you did&#33;You don&#39;t have the right to do that even if you are much older than me.In such a case what am i suppose to do?I have to answer back&#33;And i also must tell you that despite my age i&#39;ve been into much shit in my life and that made me grow up really fast.
Has it ever occured to you how many homosexual teens are confused about their sexuality just because their parents are straight? I bet very many but it&#39;s not their parents&#39; fault.In other words;i&#39;m not saying homosexual parents are unsuitable, irresponsible or whatever.As the matter of fact they can be much better parents than many heterosexual couples.But before they decide to adopt a child they must think of the difficulties the kid will face in it&#39;s life.Because there&#39;s a great chance that it will get sexually confused.And it will be their fault if they don&#39;t do anything to prevent this problem.It&#39;s like Fidelbrand said it &#39;&#39;gay couples have to acknowledge the problem that will arise in doing certain acts,as in this case to raise an adopted child.&#39;&#39;That was also my point all along.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Paragraphs&#33;
Without them I can&#39;t read that mess&#33;

[revoevo]

I bet very many but it&#39;s not their parents&#39; fault.

But it would be if the parents were homosexual? Would it be THEIR fault then? Why would that be any different?


But before they decide to adopt a child they must think of the difficulties the kid will face in it&#39;s life.Because there&#39;s a great chance that it will get sexually confused.And it will be their fault if they don&#39;t do anything to prevent this problem.

That&#39;s true for all familes, heterosexual or otherwise. If the parents don&#39;t do a good job explaining sexuality to their children, all children would be sexually confused. Homosexuals in general don&#39;t press their sexuality on anyone, it&#39;s not like they would attempt to MAKE their child gay.


It&#39;s like Fidelbrand said it &#39;&#39;gay couples have to acknowledge the problem that will arise in doing certain acts,as in this case to raise an adopted child.&#39;

ALL couples have to acknowledge the problems that may arise in raising a child, adopted or not. Why? Because everyone is an individual, and parents cannot control what happens to their children. This is the risk of bringing life into the world or choosing to raise a life as your own child. The parents might be straight, the child could be gay. And there could be difficulties that arise. But that does not mean straight couples should not raise homosexual kids. It means parents need to be understanding and a present force in their children&#39;s lives, and acknowledge their responsibilities to their children when they decide to raise them, no matter what their sexual oreintation.

[Domino]

Originally posted by &#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;@Dec 30 2003, 05:22 PM
Yes, but at least you were raised by a mother and not by two men&#33;
That just doesn&#39;t make sense. I don&#39;t see difference. It doesn&#39;t affect the kid&#39;s sexuality.

[RedCeltic]

&#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;



Red Celtic first of all i must tell you that if i were a right-wing i wouldn&#39;t be a member in &#39;&#39;Che-Lives&#39;&#39;.And what makes you say that anyway?


Please help me out here. I don&#39;t remember ever calling you "Right-Wing" and have looked through all my posts in this thread where I talked about you and I don&#39;t see it.

My first mention of you was:


I have been wanting to reply to some of the very ignorant comments made in this thread by this “Electra” person, however she seems to deny things she had said… so instead I’ll just post my own thoughts on the subject.

Which maybe was a mistake... it had seemed that way when I skimmed through the thread... what I really ment was that I was breaking in on what seemed to be an argumement and adressing my own point of view rather than replying to what was said.

Put I didn&#39;t call you a Right-Winger there... rather, I called you a person... I did say your comments were ignorant, there wasn&#39;t anything personal ment by that however.

Later I had said:


Whoahhh&#33; I don&#39;t know who the fuck you think you are but I didn&#39;t post in this thread for an IQ test... expecially from some kid who was born when I was in high school.

Which was cheep I admit, I felt attacked by you. I hardly ever pull the "age card," however this is the first time someone actually attacked my IQ on this board for no fucking reason&#33;

Than I said:


You need to CALM THE FUCK DOWN in a hurry, throwing a hissy fit is no way to win an argument...

Nothing wrong there... it isn&#39;t a way to win an argument.

Which brings me to....


we have enough Self righteous spoiled brats on this board without your help.

hmmm.... well the word righteous has the word right in it, but someone like you who would attack my IQ surely must know the meaning of righteous and surely must know that what I ment was that you flying off the handle.... was to me as a self righteous spoild brat. But than... I never actually said you are... I just said we have enough without Your help. :D

So help me out... where did I say that?

To answer the rest of your post...

Everyone of us got his own personality.Unlike some people here ,who might call themselves marxists but on the other hand can&#39;t stop attacking to others just because they dare to have some doubts,i respect it when sb expresses a different opinion from mine.

You&#39;ve got the wrong person here. I understand that many people have more traditional "old fashioned" values than I do... come from different backgrounds, have different experiences etc... I respect your opinion, however I do not have to accept being attacked by you because you are fustrated.

You had said:


OK in my last post i lost my patience completely but i guess the same would have happened to anyone if he/she had been constantly accused of things he/she never mentioned

No I&#39;m sorry but I don&#39;t see that being justifide. If people don&#39;t understand what you are saying than you need to make it clearer to them. Arguing with cappies on this board I have my words twisted all the time. I don&#39;t say they are stupid, but I correct them. Many people only read part of the post anyway... or like I did in this thread, not read everything posted. There is no excuse to attack me personally because I made an observation that may or may not have been wrong.


But i hate it when i am being insulted&#33;

Well than, you probobly should have thought about that before you insulted me for no reason. Now you know how it feels. I don&#39;t see a crime in defending myself from your personal attacks.


i also must tell you that despite my age i&#39;ve been into much shit in my life and that made me grow up really fast.

Having personal problems does not excuse you from attacking me.Let&#39;s recap: I had said your comments were ignorant, and that I felt you were denying things you had said. You respond by attacking me personally. My post was a disagreement with what was posted in this thread. Your post however was based on nothing you have firsthand knowlege of. Unless you have access to my school records.


But before they decide to adopt a child they must think of the difficulties the kid will face in it&#39;s life.Because there&#39;s a great chance that it will get sexually confused.

Yes, but all parents should think of the difficulties a kid will face in life. As I have already pointed out, many children in heterosexual familes are sexually confused. See, you are still basing your opinion on the assuption that the nuclear family is the only "natural" family. I disagree with that notion. There are children who grow up in many different kinds of situations other than the nuclear family... not even counting non western cultures.

Personally, I think the ideal situation to be raised in, would be in a community like some tribal societies. Well, perhaps thats because I&#39;m an anthropologist and would love to live in a longhouse lol.

At any rate... lets stop with the nasty hostile comments. I can see your point of view, even though I don&#39;t quite see eye to eye with you.

[tebvie]

The only reason that a child growing up with homosexual parents would be sexually confused is because society has told it to be. Poeple have grown up thinking it&#39;s different and a way to be, how come we don&#39;t discuss some of the screwed up kids with heterosexual parents? A child will grow up the way they grow up based on how they are treated and brought up not based on the sex of each parent. The problem is that people aren&#39;t at the point where what a person&#39;s sexual preference is matters as much as their hair color difference. It&#39;s wrong to raise children thinking that there only option is someone of the oppsite sex and it&#39;s wrong to urge them to any prefernce what so ever, they will figure out as it goes and if they can&#39;t it&#39;s the parents, what ever they may be, their job to let them know whatever they decide is okay and work through the underlining problems of the confusion.

[Hiero]

Why is his in philosophy its not like a philosophical converstion went on here i thought people would be talking about the reasoning of homosexuality and the causes of human sexuality.

[Chasovoy]

What bothers me are the homosexuals that sodomize at graveyards (an affront to God&#33;) and public places (like parks). I really wouldn&#39;t mind if these homosexuals fell like dominos under gunfire.

[The Feral Underclass]

Chasovoy

Che-Lives Community Board Policy


This Community is open to all leftists. Right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within this and only this forum. Right-wing messages will be ignored or deleted in all other forums and the author will be banned. If you are a right-winger or convinced capitalist and can accept this rule, good. If not, fuck off and never come back&#33;
We were forced into this meassure by some cappies which infiltrated the community and turned every thread into a general debate, a healthy discussion was impossible. This is a leftist BB (a private place, not a society or country&#33;), so please hold on with pathetic speeches about freedom of speech now.
Of course the general community rules are still valid here: No posts which are rascist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, knowingly false and/or defamatory, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person&#39;s privacy.

You have clearly demonstrated blatent, not to mention violent opinions towards homosexuals.


What bothers me are the homosexuals that sodomize at graveyards (an affront to God&#33;) and public places (like parks). I really wouldn&#39;t mind if these homosexuals fell like dominos under gunfire.

Now I would like you to justify this opinion please. Tell me why you think it is acceptable to execute gay people? Would it be ok for straight people to have sex in a graveyard or park? Do these graveyards or parks belong to you? Do you have the right to threaten violence against people because you dont happen to agree with the way they have sex?

[Chasovoy]

Tell me why you think it is acceptable to execute gay people?

Please do not think I think it is acceptable to execute gays. I have no fear or hate against normal homosexuals. Yasser Arafat is a homosexual, and I have no hate for him. Oscar Wilde was a homosexual, and I still read his works.


Would it be ok for straight people to have sex in a graveyard or park? Do these graveyards or parks belong to you? Do you have the right to threaten violence against people because you dont happen to agree with the way they have sex?

Of course not, a graveyard is a holy place, and although I do not believe in christianity, I still think that these places should not be disturbed. Those who have sex at graveyards and steal from churches are clearly demented and most likely mislead persons. Please note that I wouldn&#39;t mind that anyone who did these things fell under gunfire, not just homosexuals.

Before you judge me, I want to tell you something. I come from Slovenia. In the old socialist times (and it was a liberal society) homosexuality was punished with incarceration. This is something we are not used to.

Just cause some of you are homosexuals, don&#39;t overreact to my statements. Do not turn this into a verbal war.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19 2004, 09:26 PM
Do these graveyards or parks belong to you?
you make it sound like since he doesnt own these grave yars or parks then it isok to sex in them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who cares WHERE people have sex?

[Chasovoy]

Not in graveyards...

And just that you know, this was really happening. There is a graveyard here in Ljubljana (they don&#39;t bury people there anymore), designed by our architect Pleènik. Some of our most reputable people are buried there. They had to install video-surveillance and there is a guard present at all times (it&#39;s a cultural memorial, you see) a few years back (after 1991) because homosexuals and junkies were using it as their own little playground. And if you think this i&#39;m going to sit and watch this filth (not homosexuals in general, only those who "used" this graveyard and weak drug addicts) spit on our culture, you are rudely mistaken.

[tebvie]

I don&#39;t care who is having sex in graveyards but they shouldn&#39;t be. They are holy to someone who ever it may be, I don&#39;t know to like people who have family burried there&#33; No one gay straight homo hetero bi one eyed two eyed three eyed it don&#39;t matter no one should be doing that. I&#39;m not saying let&#39;s execute them. Definetley not but they should receive some form of punishment.

[RyeN]

Ive been finding more and more women are bisexual. I totaly understand why, women are beautiful. I dont understand homosexuality though, men arent atractive. It just doesnt make sense to me, but to each his own as long as they arent hurting anyone. Its sad though that most the time around the sterotypical "homosexual" I feel agitated. Just something about the manerisms that iritates me. I dont agree with prejudice, however I am all for freedom of personal preferance.

[Chasovoy]

You gays simply don&#39;t know what you are missing.

[RedAnarchist]

Chasavoy, they could easily say to us "you heterosexuals simply dont know what you are missing" couldnt they?

[Chasovoy]

Heh, of course.

To tell you the truth, if someone said that to me in person, i&#39;d probably hit him in the face(which DOES NOT mean that I hate homosexuals and want to beat them up, so don&#39;t attack me verbally).

[BuyOurEverything]

Heh, of course.

To tell you the truth, if someone said that to me in person, i&#39;d probably hit him in the face(which DOES NOT mean that I hate homosexuals and want to beat them up, so don&#39;t attack me verbally).

Why is it that people always follow a blatantly homophobic comment with "but I don&#39;t hate homosexuals" and expect to actually be taken seriously? You just stated that you would physically attack a homosexual for really no other reason than being openly homosexual.

[Chasovoy]

Not all people love all of Allah&#39;s creations. Let&#39;s leave it at that.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I dont understand homosexuality though, men arent atractive.

It&#39;s quite simple, you&#39;re hetrosexual. Homosexuals are attracted to men, um, do I really need to say this, because they are homosexual.

[The Feral Underclass]

you make it sound like since he doesnt own these grave yars or parks then it isok to sex in them.

Why do you care so much? :rolleyes:

[mia wallace]

i don&#39;t really get it - who&#39;d like to have sex in a grave yard?? :huh: i surely wouldn&#39;t... anyway, i think that gays are as bisexual or heterosexual people... i have a very dear friend (male) who is gay

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by captain [email protected] 2 2004, 11:37 PM
i think homosexuality as well as bisexuality and transexuality is a beautiful thing and it is acceptable i blame the bible for homophobia befor chistianity was around we all were considered equal. then the bible and chistianity came around and said things like you shall not lay next to a man as you would a women and things like be fruitfull and multiply.

i think its a great thing to have homosexuality and bisexuality in the world. almost all my friends are bisexuals and i am to. most of my friends are girls though. even my fiancee is bisexual she doesn&#39;t mind my bisexuality and i don&#39;t mind hers.

and for all the people who close their minds and are tired of hearing about homosexuality silence equals death cause the more its dicussed the more of a chance it will become acceptable in society and then it will open doors for eqaul rights for gays.
"befor chistianity was around we all were considered equal."

Before Christianity, there was Jeudaism and that is the source of the verses you speak of. You make some good points but keep in mind that it is Jeudaism that you are pointing at here. I would say Christ had quite a different veiw than the old testiment. I am not a scholar but I think this view has been twisted by bigotry as a distractionary tactic, using scapgoats to skew the real problems.

I have had some lesbian/bisexual friends too and you must be careful to avoid inconsistancies in your arguments if you are going to take on bigots and other scum. Such people use stupid excusses to give you shit. Silence does equal death, except on the day of silence if you know of it. It is a good idea in the movement to show solidarity with people no matter their sexual orientation. I participated in it at least once and it really shows support.

[Red Army]

All Gays are going to die. They can&#39;t reproduce themselfes so the problem will be solved by it&#39;s self. Evereybody should be equally (hetro)

[Mano Dayak]

I&#39;ve got no gay or lesbian friends.
Homosexuals don&#39;t bother me at all. For me, homosexuality is acceptable.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 27 2004, 10:37 AM
All Gays are going to die. They can&#39;t reproduce themselfes so the problem will be solved by it&#39;s self. Evereybody should be equally (hetro)
Problem? I see no problem, they have been around for thousands of years, I think they&#39;ll manage but thanks for your concerns. To each his own, her own, whaeva. Anywho I thought I killed this thread, crisis overted. I don&#39;t know how I do it but I do&#33; Now don&#39;t you all stop posting...the irony would be too much...ahh&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

RED ARMY


All Gays are going to die. They can&#39;t reproduce themselfes so the problem will be solved by it&#39;s self.

Homosexuality is not genetic, it can not be passed down like heart defects. Just because gay people can not reproduce with each other does not mean homsoexuality will disappear. Being gay also dosnt mean that you can not reproduce. Many gay men and women have children of there own.


Evereybody should be equally (hetro)

Do you mean by this that everyone should be equel but only if they are straight?

[Red Army]

No I mean that in a communism society you all have to be hetro, because everyone should be equal .

And the other thing I meant was that if everybody was homo, the world population would drastically decrease (Well that COULD be possitive, but also negative)

[The Feral Underclass]

No I mean that in a communism society you all have to be hetro, because everyone should be equal .

To create equality does not mean that those people who are "different" to what is perceived to be normal have to change. Black people shouldnt have to become white just so they can be equal. Equality should come because everyone has the right to be and do as they please, and should not be persecuted because of it.


And the other thing I meant was that if everybody was homo, the world population would drastically decrease

So&#33; and you seem to be missing the point. Gay men do not suddenly loose all there sperm because they are gay and gay women&#39;s wombs do not suddenly fall out of their stomachs because they are gay. Have you not heard of technology. It is possible for people to concieve without having sex.

What are you even arguing. are you saying that because the population may decrease that homosexuality is a bad thing?

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 27 2004, 10:37 AM
All Gays are going to die. They can&#39;t reproduce themselfes so the problem will be solved by it&#39;s self. Evereybody should be equally (hetro)
WOW&#33;


your a genious man&#33; :rolleyes:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

This here is a rigged question. If you don&#39;t agree, then you&#39;d better have a REAL good reason why gays shouldnt be treated as equals, good enough to change the views of the entire communist movement, or else some admins are going to go on a banning spree.

[LSD]

If you don&#39;t agree, then you&#39;d better have a REAL good reason why gays shouldnt be treated as equals

Well.....you should.

What if I started a thread about how "coloreds" shouldn&#39;t be equal?

There are certain assumptions made by a humanistic theory, such as communism, and one of the pivotal ones is a conception of human value, a value that exists equally regardless of who one is attracted to.


This here is a rigged question.

Damn right it is, and it should be.

Not all questions are equal.
All people are.

[DarkAngel]

What ever flouts their boat.

Not everybody is going to be the same, so we should just back off and respect that. Don&#39;t treat a gay person any better or worse because of their sexual prefrence.

[tebvie]

People should do their thing as long as it doesn&#39;t harm anyone else. Who cares why people are gay.

[Pingu]

Gay or not? what does it matter, let everyone be them selves (if they don&#39;t harm others)

and did you know some animal-species have homosexual&#39;s too?

[Iepilei]

I really don&#39;t see why people give a damn who loves who. I&#39;m cool with homosexuals, bi-sexuals, tri-sexuals, whatever.

Now don&#39;t get me wrong. In the words of Dennis Miller: "But when I&#39;m watching the gay pride parade, and the &#39;genitals are our friends float&#39; cruises by with two leather-bound eraser-heads named Timmy and Tommy the Testical Twins, sure, I get the same creepy feeling I get when I hear Shatner sing..."

But, as he finishes, at the end of the day it&#39;s their buisness and it&#39;s relatively harmless buisness.

[Comrade Yars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 09:43 PM
One of the most irritating kind of people I have had the unfortunate pleasure to communicate with are those are against the idea of gay marrage, homophobes the lot of them. Gay people should be afforded complete equality.
I second this notion entirely&#33; My Girlfriend&#39;s stepfather is such a person and I find it increasingly difficult to hold an intellectual conversation with the man without him bashing homosexuals in some form or fashion... as it were a good friend of mine is homosexual and one of the best guys I have ever met to this day. For the most part gay bashers have a tendancy to be religious fundamentalist conservatives who seem to base their arguements off of nothing but anger and a complete absence of logic. <_<

[SittingBull47]

I think homosexuals should have the exact same rights as everyone else. Sadly, few people enjoy equal rights. This issue is important for me, i received heavy criticism for it at work and i have no doubt that that was one of the reasons i was fired.
I have many lesbian/bisexual friends and they&#39;re the coolest/most intelligent people i know. They&#39;re open-minded, not racist, sexist, etc., they&#39;re just good people. Very understanding.

The homophobes are assholes, there are too many down by my. coincidentally, their also racists, bigots, right wingers, pro-death penalty, etc. etc. etc.

The people around here are like ............ "oh noooo, if dem dare queer&#39;s get hitched...america&#39;s go&#39;on straight to hell&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1111" *drinks from a jug marked xxx, shoots gun, waves kkk flag*

I say the homosexuals are wrongly accused of being the scum of our society. It&#39;s the people who accuse them, the conservative/republican/fascist dickheads that are fucking our society. Fuck those who try to restrict the love between people&#33;

[Soul Keeper]

People are what they are, and you like it or not you must accept&#33;&#33;&#33;
FREEDOM&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
RESPECT IT&#33;&#33;

[Lefty]

I&#39;m down with gay people. There are gay animals, so the argument that it isn&#39;t natural is kinda debunked, right? I say, to each his own, unless his own is eating babies. Am I right? Am I right? Yes, yes I am.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by &#39;&#39;electra&#39;&#39;@Jan 9 2004, 01:46 PM
But before they decide to adopt a child they must think of the difficulties the kid will face in it&#39;s life.Because there&#39;s a great chance that it will get sexually confused.

People question their sexuality with or without heterosexual parents. Your friends experience was one of many. Any "problems" encountered would be the result of a narrow-minded, bigoted society. It is like saying "I don&#39;t believe in blacks marrying whites because their children will be teased at school". You are insinuating that individuals should alter their lives, rather than changing the system that is actually causing the problem.

[Neelie The Great]

Iam not racist to Homosexuals...they can date and what ever, but I dun go with them wanting to grant legal marrages and stuff, because the&#39;re making it lok normal when its not... sorry his Iam dissing any homosexuals out there..but don&#39;t try to make it a normal thing, because its not.

[Trissy]

Iam dissing any homosexuals out there..but don&#39;t try to make it a normal thing, because its not.

And your definition of normal would be what exactly? I&#39;m gay but I don&#39;t exactly consider myself to be abnormal. My feelings are my own and they don&#39;t harm anybody...how can you possibley call my feelings abnormal until you&#39;ve lived with them? Surely the millions of homosexual and bisexual people worldwide kind of destroy your argument and that&#39;s before we even begin to consider people who have experimented and people who will never admit to having feelings towards people of the same sex.

In responce to the legal marriage business I think that gay people should be allowed full marriage rights if they so wish and as an atheist this is not because I want them but because I don&#39;t see why they shouldn&#39;t. Bush seems to think it will dilute the meaning of marriage but here is my rational argument against him.

>Marriage is held to be a commitment made before God
>But many people who get married are atheists and you don&#39;t disallow them the right nor do you try to weed them out in any way (i.e. all they have to say is that they believe in God...who can check after all?)
>If atheists can get married then surely a better recognition of marriage is that it is loving commitment and a display of that love (whether it be for someone of the opposite or the same sex)
>Plus surely the fact that 1 in 3 marriages fail points to the fact that marriage is on its last legs anyway...I&#39;m sure gay people would actually improve the statistics since we&#39;ve been prevented from getting married and therefore more of us will appreciate it.

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by Neelie The [email protected] 21 2004, 10:18 PM
Iam not racist to Homosexuals...they can date and what ever, but I dun go with them wanting to grant legal marrages and stuff, because the&#39;re making it lok normal when its not... sorry his Iam dissing any homosexuals out there..but don&#39;t try to make it a normal thing, because its not.
RACIST to homosexuals? there&#39;s a real word for that.

Define normal, really.

[insurgency03]

I think that all people go through a stage of experimentation, and figure out which lifestyle is theirs. Whether you have when your young or when your 85, its perfectly natural, i myself decided to have the best of both worlds. I personally think that homophobes are either brainwashed into thinking this way by the corrupt and intolerent leaeders of religion( I dont think that if there is a God that he&#39;s capable of hate or intolerence, or that he cares that people have found loopholes in the system of life)or that they&#39;re going through that time of their lives and they dont know how to deal with it. Seeing that its an unknown feeling, so they lash at out at this unknown with anger and hate.

[cubist]

i used to think homosexuality was unnatural but got convinced the other way by this lot, i lost the posts are in this section somewhere.

homosexuality is no more unnatural than wiping your arse

[withoutmercy]

Originally posted by Rebbel of The [email protected] 20 2003, 07:29 PM
I also have a gay friend, this time male. Before I met him I really had no formed opinion of my own, being 11 &#39;n&#39; all. But since I have stopped going along with all the homophobes I once "agreed with" and now have my own solid opinion that homosexuality is fine. Being gay doesn&#39;t stop a man or woman being a nice person, and thats what really matters, no? In actual fact, in my experience, I have found that homosexuals tend to be far nicer people than straights, except homophobes, obviously. But, since I have had my own strong opinion on homosexuality I have taken up many new things. Like when I hear someone making a joke at the expense of gays, I ask if they&#39;v ever met a gay. Usually this shows how immature they are, but I can&#39;t do much more as I was once like them.
Afterall, "gay" also means happy...

Pabli
I absaloutely agree 100%

[Nickademus]

Originally posted by Neelie The [email protected] 21 2004, 02:18 PM
Iam not racist to Homosexuals...they can date and what ever, but I dun go with them wanting to grant legal marrages and stuff, because the&#39;re making it lok normal when its not... sorry his Iam dissing any homosexuals out there..but don&#39;t try to make it a normal thing, because its not.
i wonder what your definition of normal is. I&#39;m a pagan, does that make me abnormal? i&#39;m hetero ... does that make me normal? please define &#39;normal&#39;.

and all marriage is is a committment to one person .... to love them for how ever long (in my faith handfastings are only meant to last 7 years) ... so who the hell cares if its two guys or two women deciding to make that commitment .... its NORMAL to want to commit to someone you care so deeply about. so why deny them marriage.

and if people are so worried about homosexual marriages weakening the bonds of marriage shouldn&#39;t we take a look at hte fact that hte current divorce rate is over 50%. marriage is an institution that for many people no longer has any real meaning so why deny it to those who still believe in it, regardless of their sexual preference.

and i personally believe that people shouldn&#39;t be labelled as hetero or homo ... we are sexual beings .. the acts we engage in are hetero or homo .. not the people themselves. we are just human.

[dark fairy]

i don&#39;t find anything wrong with it...even if it bothers me i, living were i the country i live in everyone if free to do whatever they want so I can&#39;t say anything but i have nothing against it. i have friends that are gay but it&#39;s ok :)

[Jesus Christ]

a person is judged on their character, not their race, creed, or sexuality

to be a homophobe is to be at the peak of ignorance

[apathy maybe]

Sexuality is generally completely natural. (When I say generally I mean most of the time. There are examples of chemicals (man made chemicals) screwing up the sex of fish and I think other animals.)
Gender (which is different for those of you who didn&#39;t know), is also natural (and I can&#39;t think of any case where a persons or animals gender has been changed by chemicals (except when they are in the womb).

What sex you are is what you genitale (sp?) look like and what gonads you have. I.e. if you have a penis and balls you&#39;re male. A vagina and ovaries you&#39;re female. A mix and you got mixed sexuality.
Gender is more a preference thing. If you prefer having sex with males and you&#39;re male, then your homosexual etc. When I say it is a preference thing, I meant that it is hardwired. YOU don&#39;t really get any say in the matter. It is hardwired when you are in the womb, and has to do with what amounts of what hormones you get.

And if you believe that the Earth is flat, I pity you and wish that you would not only read more books on the subject, but also go out and watch a ship disappear when it goes under the horizon.

[TC]

Why is a question like this even being posed to a leftist discussion forum? It should just be assumed that any homophobes ought to be shunned by a leftist community...and sent to reducation-by-labor camps after the revolution :rolleyes:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:24 AM
[...]reducation-by-labor camps[...]
What? Why "labor?" If you are educating them, why would they be working? Maybe reducation-confinement for counter-revolutionaries. I don&#39;t think we need the labor force anyway.

[Guest1]

How about, just not allowed to vote? :P

Just kidding.

[TC]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Mar 30 2004, 05:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (313C7 iVi4RX @ Mar 30 2004, 05:28 AM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 10:24 AM
[...]reducation-by-labor camps[...]
What? Why "labor?" If you are educating them, why would they be working? Maybe reducation-confinement for counter-revolutionaries. I don&#39;t think we need the labor force anyway. [/b]
I was just trying to be funny, but I think the contemporary use of the term "re-education-through-labor" refers not actual labor but to Chinese camps that are supposed to deprogramn religious cult fanatics by taking them out of their cult leader&#39;s influence and exposing them to media and people not part of the cult...which is kindof like what you&#39;d have to do with southern baptist homophobes.

[Saint-Just]

Part of re-education is first breaking someone down, removing all the old ideas, and then rebuilding with new ones. Labour helps break a person down if they do a simple and repetetive activity for long hours.

[JokingClown]

I posted this on a different site originally, and it is my opinion basically.

Definitions of "marriage" from Merriam Websters.
1) : The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) :[B] the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons :
WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

While I am not gay myself, I am strongly opposed to banning gay marriages.

Lets start off with civil unions. Civil unions are not legally equal to marriages. First of all, married coupples can get government benefits such as tax breaks, and other governmental help. Also partners in civil unions cannot make the same legal choices as married couples do. For example, if one of the partners falls into a coma, the other cannot choose what to do with them while they are out. (pulling the plug, etc). If a gay man or women dies while serving the military, the flag is given to the parents, unless the couple is married. The list goes on. I am not just saying that "the list goes on" because I have ran out of things to write. I will post other examples later, if someone requests them.

I think it is safe to say that civil unions and marriages are not equal.

Religious folks who are against gay marriages tend to claim that "gays marrying pollute and contaminate the sanctity of marriage". This is crap. As people have pointed out, athiests marry, and nearly no religious people have a problem with that. Also, [b] gay people can be/are religious also. The sanctity of marriage has long been contiminated. For example, the idea of divorce is one contamination.

Even giving gays the same rights as marriage under a different name is not enough. This is what is known as segregation. If you are unaware of this term, or think it is ok, I&#39;ll be happy to answer any questions. For now, I will assume everyone here has passed their 6th grade history class.

[jimi2times]

Is it possible to say that i don&#39;t believe that there should be gay marriages without sounding homophobic? I don&#39;t think that being gay is a healthy, natural thing, but that doesn&#39;t mean i don&#39;t see that human being as any less of a human because of his/her sexual preference. In my opinion, being gay is like having a phobia to something. You wouldn&#39;t have any aggressive feeling or wish someone ill-will if they were afraid of heights, or spiders etc.. but at the same time you wouldn&#39;t say that it was normal.

[Trissy]

I don&#39;t think that being gay is a healthy, natural thing, but that doesn&#39;t mean i don&#39;t see that human being as any less of a human because of his/her sexual preference. In my opinion, being gay is like having a phobia to something

Erm...just two brief questions.

1.Why don&#39;t you think that being gay is a healthy, natural thing?

2.How is being gay like having a phobia?

[jimi2times]

Why don&#39;t you think that being gay is a healthy, natural thing?

I would have to say that it stems from my belief in God. God created man and woman, so when man then chooses to worship his fellow man instead of a woman, which God has created for him, than it&#39;s a bit of an insult to God. I guess in some ways this could be seen as a bit of a cop out, and i understand when people say that christians hide behind their religion. But the truth is that if you truly do believe in God and Know that he exists, then it is tempting to believe what he (through the bible) says, and to go along with it.


How is being gay like having a phobia?

Maybe i was off point on this one. We don&#39;t know if being gay is something biological or sociological, or just something that people choose to be. But what i do know that we have choices that we can make, and that we are free to make these choices. They somethimes might be very hard to make. We might be over-whelmingly tempted to lust and desire over another man, but then so is the alcoholic who simply has to have one more drink. These might be temptations and instinctive desires, but we can stil make choices whether to act on them or not.

One question i do have generally is this: Does being gay make you feel guilty in anyway and why do you think this is - or if you&#39;re not gay do you think homosexuality comes with feelings of guilt?

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;m not homosexualist, so i&#39;ll answer the latter rather than the former question.

I cannot think of any reason why they would feel guilty. It is their sexuality and is a part of their identity. They should be proud of their sexuality and should not be scared to show their sexuality.

[Wenty]

We don&#39;t know if being gay is something biological or sociological, or just something that people choose to be

I would say it is biological - it is something you are born with. I would also say it is unnatural for the same reasons we say anything isn&#39;t &#39;normal&#39;, i.e. the majority of people are not gay. Secondly, perhaps being gay is a consequence of our Evolution. Animals have very basic needs such as to eat, to reproduce. I find it hard to believe you would find a gay cat or dog. They are driven by their basic instincts whereas we have a greater intellect leading to other routes in sexuality.

Just a thought.

[Trissy]

I would have to say that it stems from my belief in God. God created man and woman, so when man then chooses to worship his fellow man instead of a woman, which God has created for him, than it&#39;s a bit of an insult to God. I guess in some ways this could be seen as a bit of a cop out, and i understand when people say that christians hide behind their religion. But the truth is that if you truly do believe in God and Know that he exists, then it is tempting to believe what he (through the bible) says, and to go along with it

*Sighs* oh you people make me angry at times....so many assumptions and never the patience to carry your thoughts through to a logical conclusion. If God created men and women then he also created gay men and women. I can assure you that as a gay man I in no way live this life out of choice or because I wish to offend some all powerful diety. I live this life because these are the feelings I have and I don&#39;t see why I should repress them for anyone. If people want to live lives that are lies then fine but that&#39;s not for me.

The Bible says many things. It says you should stone gay people...but do you? No...because Jesus said that &#39;he who lives without sin may cast the first stone&#39;. He also said &#39;judge not lest ye be judged&#39; and do you? erm...yes&#33; You say we&#39;re not natural, that we shouldn&#39;t allowed to get married and at best we should remain celibate for our whole lives. Have you ever questioned why a loving God would create people with feelings that they should resist all their lives? You cannot live with a &#39;pix and mix&#39; Bible and that is why I have the biggest problem with Christianity above all other religions. The amount of assumptions you make and the arrogance that is required to do so makes me sick.


Maybe i was off point on this one. We don&#39;t know if being gay is something biological or sociological, or just something that people choose to be. But what i do know that we have choices that we can make, and that we are free to make these choices. They somethimes might be very hard to make. We might be over-whelmingly tempted to lust and desire over another man, but then so is the alcoholic who simply has to have one more drink. These might be temptations and instinctive desires, but we can stil make choices whether to act on them or not.

One question i do have generally is this: Does being gay make you feel guilty in anyway and why do you think this is - or if you&#39;re not gay do you think homosexuality comes with feelings of guilt?

First you were comparing being gay to being an irrational neurosis. Now you&#39;re saying that gay people are merely weak people who cannot control their lust. Hello&#33; Have you ever heard of love? You know that magic thing you seem happy to attribute to a man who&#39;s been dead for 2000 years. Have you ever thought that some gay couples are actually in love or is this reserved for the special people who were born &#39;normal&#39; like you? Plus you still haven&#39;t said why being gay is unhealthy. You&#39;ve now compared being gay to a neurosis, and an addiction. Any other insults you wish to unleash?

Of course I feel no guilt because I have no need to feel guilty. If gay people ever do feel guilty then I would like to suggest that it is because they are stigmatised by religious groups and conservatives. I know both Conservatives and Christians love to use the pre-fix &#39;compassionate&#39; but you are having a laugh aren&#39;t you? These groups don&#39;t want to accept us or treat us as equals...you merely want us to be quiet and go hide away out of sight.


I would also say it is unnatural for the same reasons we say anything isn&#39;t &#39;normal&#39;, i.e. the majority of people are not gay. Secondly, perhaps being gay is a consequence of our Evolution. Animals have very basic needs such as to eat, to reproduce. I find it hard to believe you would find a gay cat or dog.

Yes but equating &#39;natural&#39; and &#39;normal&#39; to being in the majority is a very dangerous thing to do Adam. Following your logic we could call white people unnatural because to be fair Adam we&#39;re not in the majority if you looked at the statistics. I think the global numbers of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the world seem to throw even greater doubt on any claims that to be attracted to people of the same gender is &#39;unnatural&#39; (and that&#39;s before we even consider the numbers of people who will never admit to such feelings because they&#39;re scared).

On the second point you raised, there have been numerous discoveries of gay animals even if they are in much smaller numbers. I think we can generally dismiss this argument though as animals have mating seasons and we clearly do not...

[Wenty]

I see your point. My point was that even by the greatest estimates gay people are in the minority. It follows from this that being gay isn&#39;t normal. However, the point about white people in the minority got me thinking...Maybe i&#39;m wrong i don&#39;t know but there seems to be a kernel of truth in my point whatever even if in one case it isn&#39;t analogous.

[Trissy]

Maybe i&#39;m wrong i don&#39;t know but there seems to be a kernel of truth in my point whatever even if in one case it isn&#39;t analogous

A kernel of truth? I must disagree with you on this on Adam because I think the only thing that seperates your argument from one that could easily have been put forward by Danny Squire (a Conservative acquaitance of ours with a habit for making broad, often provactive statements for those who don&#39;t know either of us) is your style of presentation. Maybe this is an example of what Nietzsche meant when he said &#39;To improve your style means to improve your ideas, and nothing esle&#39;?

I might have agreed with what you said if it was only flawed on one area but I think is it fails in many areas due to your sweeping generalistion. Let us just try to think of other examples of unnatural things under your definition...

* Most people in the world have black hair...therefore people who don&#39;t are unnatural. The same can be said of for people without brown eyes.
* Left handed people are also unnatual.
* So are people with physical or mental disabilities
* So are people with genetic illnesses.
* So are people who don&#39;t poses all 5 working senses.

And this is before we even consider whether the same can be applied to social trends like religious or political belief...

The biggest problem I have with what you&#39;re saying Adam is that it provides arguments for the far right to use. If something is unnatural then many people will say that people with these characteristics are inferior...and if they&#39;re inferior then what can we do to prevent them. This starts a ball rolling that can only ever end up with selective breeding programs and segregation/extermination of certain minority groups.

[Wenty]

Maybe so, even if the far right decide to use it to say these people are inferior it doesn&#39;t stop the fact that it is empricially unnatural. I don&#39;t think you can deny that. It doesn&#39;t make it wrong though and it doesn&#39;t make these people lesser than anyone else, not at all.

I think that word, unnatural, has been hijacked in the past to mean something that it isn&#39;t.

[God of Imperia]

It&#39;s not that they are unnatural, they&#39;re just diffrent ... There is nothing wrong about that, why should it?
Btw, the reason why people think it is unnatural is because you can&#39;t get children, everything in nature is about growing up and getting children of your own, to keep the species alive. I think we all can agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can&#39;t have children (not without the interference of someone of the opposite sex).

[che's long lost daughter]

How many topics about homosexuality have been started? How long are we all going to argue about this?

[Trissy]

How many topics about homosexuality have been started? How long are we all going to argue about this?

This is the only one I know of but their may have been others. Plus we&#39;ll continue to argue until we rid ourselves of as much discrimination as is humanly possible...


Maybe so, even if the far right decide to use it to say these people are inferior it doesn&#39;t stop the fact that it is empricially unnatural. I don&#39;t think you can deny that. It doesn&#39;t make it wrong though and it doesn&#39;t make these people lesser than anyone else, not at all.

I think that word, unnatural, has been hijacked in the past to mean something that it isn&#39;t.

HA&#33; You aren&#39;t half full of folly at times Adam. Empirically unnatural? Adam please explain &#39;empirically unnatural&#39; to the rest of us because as far as I was empiricism was concerned with experiences like hot, cold, light, dark, bitter, sweet and many other things that can be derived from the senses. What you have made is a statement about an IDEA...such as justice, morality, beauty, etc. You may want to flee from your idealism but don&#39;t think you can fool the rest of us. I can deny what you have said, and I will continue to deny it until you come up with a good reason for me not to.

Please don&#39;t try and say it has been hijacked. &#39;Natural&#39; was probably created as a word for the sole purpose of repression, dominance and reassurance. The human mind is a powerful and a mysterious thing at times but I&#39;m sure if you produce a genealogy of nature you&#39;ll find its roots go a lot deeper into darkness then you would like. But if you want to think your &#39;natural&#39; then go ahead. If it helps you sleep at night then good for you. Bravo&#33; But just because you avert your eyes before things you fear, please don&#39;t think you&#39;ve stumbled accross truth somehow.

[Wenty]

You&#39;re overexaggreating. What I meant by empirically unnatural was that from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm.

I think it just comes down to a difference of a opinion in the end. In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce and so why is it that you&#39;re objecting to what i&#39;m saying. You&#39;re still thinking of unnatural in the negative, inferior sense.

The last part of what you said meant little sense to me, especially this :-


just because you avert your eyes before things you fear, please don&#39;t think you&#39;ve stumbled accross truth somehow.

[Robert Edward Lee]

Speaking as an enlightened right-winger here.......

In a modern society there should be absolutely no constraints put upon people due to the their sexual orientation. The idea of &#39;gay weddings&#39; is, in my opinion, an excellent idea, designed to encourage a secure home basis and eliminate the situations where a loving partner is unable to legally inherit property.

As long as people do not harm anyone else, their decisions should be allowed and respected. I believe this across all spectrums, be it politics to sexuality.

As for the debate on &#39;abnormality&#39;, Wenty is absolutely correct. Technically homosexuality is &#39;abnormal&#39;. It is the opposite of normal i.e. the majority. There is nothing wrong with this definition of abnormal. It is the same calling a genius &#39;abnormal&#39;, or a Liberal Democrat voter. They are in the minority.

[Trissy]

You&#39;re overexaggreating. What I meant by empirically unnatural was that from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm.

I think it just comes down to a difference of a opinion in the end. In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce and so why is it that you&#39;re objecting to what i&#39;m saying. You&#39;re still thinking of unnatural in the negative, inferior sense.

The last part of what you said meant little sense to me, especially this :-



just because you avert your eyes before things you fear, please don&#39;t think you&#39;ve stumbled accross truth somehow


I apoligise for the long reply in advance but I shall need to answer you fully.

Perhaps a better term to use might be &#39;phenomenologically unnatural&#39;? Otherwise you seem to be presenting us with an epistomological method for establishing truth from fiction (in an odd half Humian/half Idealist kind of way).

You say &#39;put&#39; Adam. This would imply that there is someone/something who put us here so to speak and I guess that this is where our different opinions stem from (is this someone/something God in your line of inquiry?). All I know is that I am here. I may never know where the human race stemmed from and so for now I must ignore the question and not bring in some untestable answer to solve it through faith. We don&#39;t have to reproduce...it is something people choose to do (or so it would seem) since we evolved from our early ancestors and left a mating season behind us.

I object to what you are saying because I believe it is a VERY short step from what you are saying, to what the far right is saying. After all the whole issue behind the condemnation of homosexuality (and related issues like adoption and marriage) by many religious or far right groups stem from that fact that it is not &#39;natural&#39; (by which they mean inferior...otherwise why do religious people prefer choosing good over evil? Why do political people choose to follow what they believe is right over what they believe to be wrong?).

The last part was a bit of Nietzsche in me (not a quote...just a thought of mine stemming from things he has written about). I believe we need to revaluate all values, and so I have been revaluating &#39;nature&#39; and the &#39;natural&#39;/&#39;normal&#39;. My point was basically human beings fear ignorance and so come up with answers to try and trick ourselves into believing we have found answers. Both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein commented on how language was powerful and can at times be seen as &#39;defining our limits&#39; or as being a &#39;trap&#39;. Just because there is a word &#39;natural&#39; you assume this means something and relates to something when it could easily just be a piece of fiction invented by men to help them through the night. &#39;The genealogy of morality&#39; tries to put forward an alternative view to the source of morality and I am merely trying to apply this to the &#39;natural&#39;. Averting ones eyes from the question of where we came from because you believe you have answered it to your satisfaction and liking doesn&#39;t mean that you have stumbled on the truth...you could have just tricked yourself into happiness.

I merely wish to destroy the value &#39;natural&#39;...


Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself—he created only the significance of things, a human significance&#33; Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator.

Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones&#33; Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.

Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones&#33;

Change of values—that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator
- The Thousand and One goals

[jimi2times]

posted by accident, opps.

[Wenty]

Just because there is a word &#39;natural&#39; you assume this means something and relates to something when it could easily just be a piece of fiction invented by men to help them through the night

Yes, i am aware of Nietzsche and Wittegstein&#39;s interpretation of language and how it can &#39;betwix our intelligence&#39; as W. said.

You seem to have ignored some points in my post i thought most important.

Namely,
In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce

You only picked up on one point in this quote and it wasn&#39;t the most imp. part at all.

Also,
from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm.

Ignoring your Nietzschean sentiments for a minute, we can still intellectually accept these points without somehow endorsing what the far right thinks.

[Trissy]

I did not ignore them in the slightest Adam. We had already covered them. But if you wish to do so again then that is fine by me because we will eventually get to the points I was making, it&#39;ll just take slightly longer that&#39;s all.



In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce


Firsly I cannot deny that physiologically heterosexuals can reproduce. What I can deny is that a physiological fact somehow classifies as a PURPOSE. I can also deny that we were PUT here. You are wishing to take a fact and extend it to a teleological point. That requires faith my friend and we both know each others views on that.


from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm

I also cannot deny that we are in the minority. What I can deny is that we should use the term THE NORM when we are describing the majority...why can&#39;t we simply use the term the majority? Do we really need to risk using loosely defined terms that can be seized on by the far right?


Ignoring your Nietzschean sentiments for a minute, we can still intellectually accept these points without somehow endorsing what the far right thinks
I can accept some parts of your points as you see above. I can also question other parts of them. I never said you endorsed the far right...all I&#39;m saying is that your definition of normal exposes us to the far right propaganda machine. Now...will you address my Nietzschen sentiments as I actually think they raise some reasonanly good points?

[Wenty]

. What I can deny is that a physiological fact somehow classifies as a PURPOSE.

I wasn&#39;t trying to make a teleological point. I was using this point to show that homosexuality can&#39;t be seen as &#39;natural&#39;, if we accept the convention for a second, because then they would have the ability to reproduce. The point about being &#39;put on earth&#39; wasn&#39;t intended to imply a deity or faith it was just a way of putting a point.

When it comes to language I concur with N. It can at times give only broad definitions of complex ideas but this is an unfortunate truism. We have to accept it for convenience&#39;s sake if we are to communicate with one another.

[canikickit]

Homosexuals can reproduce, just not together.
The difference is that homosexual relationships will not result in accidental pregnancy.
Perhaps it is a "natural" progression to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

[7189]

I have nothing against homosexuals, although I do find them rather queer (no pun intended).

I have heard a theory recently that says that homosexuality is a natural adaptation to cut down on overpopulation.

[Stapler]

I read somewhere that if you are the second male child that a mother has birthed, you are 50% more likely to be a homosexual. Meaning that nature has given this a lot of thought, and if you are gay it is your mothers&#39;s fault (no offense intended, I just felt i&#39;d answer the age old question "who&#39;s fault is it").

[DarkAngel]

Short Version: hey buddy whatever flouts ur boat.

Longer Version: Whos to say whats natural and whats unnatural. You cant help who your attracted too. And why does it have to be someones fault? Is it someones fault that their straight? This is so stupid, its like saying, maybe its this guys fault that that group of people are like that. Its not anyones fault, its not your mother, its not your enviorment, its simply you. People are going to be different so why not let them? Or are you just going to act ignorant and pretend that the whole world has to follow your order?

[Postteen]

I don&#39;t find that homosexuals aren&#39;t normal and etc.Unfortunately I haven&#39;t any homosexeual freinds and I don&#39;t even know or have met such people.But honestly I think that it must be difficult to accept that you&#39;re not like the majority and difficult to tell your parents. :unsure: Anywaz I&#39;d love to meet someone how is gay cuz I&#39;ve heard they can be women&#39;s best freinds.

[Wenty]

Whos to say whats natural and whats unnatural

Well in a grandiose, objective type of way perhaps not but we can infer from experience what typifies natual and unnatural. Maybe they are misguided or too simplisitic but never the less we can make the distinction.


from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm


In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce

[elijahcraig]

I find it stupid to debate whether something is "natural" or "unnatural." The level of naturality of homosexuality has nothing to do with why people do it. And it has nothing to do with why people dislike homosexuality.

People invent concepts of "normality" in order to justify their refusal of their natural and Dionysian urges. The face of god--primal man--scares people into retreat. They end up puritanical and rigid.

[Wenty]

well thats an interesting opinion.

The idea about naturality came about from discussion, &#39;naturally&#39;, if you will.

[SittingBull47]

Me and 2 friends were thrifting friday after school, so we walked into a "re-uzit shop" owned and operated entirely by mennonites, for mennonites. I had quite the find...a t-shirt that said "How can a moral wrong be a civil right?" This angered me...so i began to steal lapel pins and whatnot.

[dark fairy]

DRAG QUEENS RULE&#33;&#33;&#33; :P
not all drags are homosexuals or transveties... but they are very nice the ones i&#39;ve met... :) :D :unsure:

[kroony]

I am inclined to agree with Tristan here (and indeed with Matt). Unfortunately it&#39;s past midnight and I can&#39;t be bothered to elaborate.

[Not_For_Sale]

hmm yeah men are unattractive. :D I like women hehe*growls*

[The Feral Underclass]

Wenty

On the question of homosuality being unnatural. When people use the word nature in this context they are declaring that it is an objective concept. To attempt to look at the concept of nature objectivly you have to reduce it right back to the very beginning of humanity. What is natural to human beings? In an objective sense it is to walk around with no clothes on and hunt wild animal. It is to live in caves and to not have electricty or clean running water.

Humanity has evolved from then. We have electricity, we have running water, we wear clothes now for several reasons, one because it is more comfortable in cold weather and two because of ethics surrounding nudity. It is not natural to be afraid of wearing clothes but throughtout history what we define as nature objectivly has now become subjective views. We can not look objective at nature the way we could when we were hunter/gatherers. Nature has become subjective and therefore the statement that homosexuality is unnatural is rediculas. Nothing we do is natural, from wearing glasses to wearing polyester to using a telephone to driving a car.

In this modern age we now have to redefine what is natural. Objectivly any view on nature is subjective. Our concepts of ethics, morals, political philosophy, economic management have shifted into new realms. What was nautral 2000 years ago is no longer natural, thus it becomes a subjective view. So it follows, what is natural for me may not be natural for you. It is perfectly natural for me to sleep with another man, just as it is natural for you to wear trousers.

[Wenty]

I agree with you on this post. The only response I can make would be to say well look at our physiological makeup. The is geared to same sex reproduction the world over. Our concept of &#39;natural&#39; cannot change that much when this is the case.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:07 AM
I agree with you on this post. The only response I can make would be to say well look at our physiological makeup. The is geared to same sex reproduction the world over. Our concept of &#39;natural&#39; cannot change that much when this is the case.
Is it natural to rape? wear a condom? have anal or oral sex? Is it natural to masturbate or get turned on by porn?

If this was the case then why do we have women and men who have absolutly no intention of having children and would rather concentrate on their own lives or careers etc.

[Wenty]

thats all irrelevent. I&#39;m saying look at the way we are as people, we have reproductive organs designed for producing more humans. How is homosexuality a natural thing when we all have these tools for procreating. It doesn&#39;t matter what people are interested in doing, the organs existing in the first place is my point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then how do you explain homosexuality? A defect in the hetrosexual mind?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I cant see where Wenty even mentions defects of the mind, he is just stating and its an argument a friend puts to me all the time that physically homosexual is not the normal function of the body.

My counterargument is simple, think of all the things you do for pleasure that are abnormal to the body that arent sexual like why cant homosexual sex be the same. If someone chooses it as a lifestyle and you curb it you deny them their freedom for pressure.

I think I may oversimplify this one though.

[honest intellectual]

It makes no difference whether or not it is natural. It does no harm therefore it is not wrong. You can&#39;t base morality on what is and isn&#39;t natural. Rape is natural.

[Trissy]

Maybe they are misguided or too simplisitic but never the less we can make the distinction.

*from our experience seeming as homosexuals are in the minority we can say it is not the norm

*In a physiological sense, fundamentally humans are put on this earth to reproduce

The only response I can make would be to say well look at our physiological makeup. The is geared to same sex reproduction the world over. Our concept of &#39;natural&#39; cannot change that much when this is the case.

I&#39;m saying look at the way we are as people, we have reproductive organs designed for producing more humans. How is homosexuality a natural thing when we all have these tools for procreating. It doesn&#39;t matter what people are interested in doing, the organs existing in the first place is my point

I hate to go over old ground but maybe if I reword my argument and make it less abstract I&#39;ll get an answer. I have agreed with you that we can make this distinction but this stance raises a number of questions Adam.

Why do people want to make this distinction? It could be said that we are making this distinction merely for distinction&#39;s sake but the sceptic in me finds that about as believable as people who are after truth for truth&#39;s sake. We could say that every human action is driven by a purpose or a reason (even if it can often be difficult to see or may appear different to what it is).

Now what could be our reasons for wishing to make this distinction? What purpose does it serve? It&#39;s not like differentiating between naturally made materials and synthetic materials which is useful for chemical and medical purposes, so what possible use can it have?

*We can use it to make moral statements.

*We can use it as a basis for expressing the superiority of certain things.

*We can use it to make statements about genetics and psychology.

If we can do all these then we run the risk of playing into the hands of the far right. If you have no (apparent) reason to make this distinction then why make it at all?

[Wenty]

your&#39;re stuck in a inferiorty rutt tristan&#33;

I was making the distinction because it was supposed in earlier posts by others that it was natural. What you&#39;re saying about why we make the distinction is for a different debate; besides I&#39;m not in a poistion to make grandiose suppositions about why we make distinctions for naturality.



think of all the things you do for pleasure that are abnormal to the body

Can you name some? I can&#39;t think at this moment. Also, i don&#39;t think this is a proper rebuttal to the &#39;biological argument&#39;, as it were. The physiological makeup is still the same, still geared towards heterosexual relations.


It makes no difference whether or not it is natural. It does no harm therefore it is not wrong. You can&#39;t base morality on what is and isn&#39;t natural. Rape is natural.

How is Rape natural? Besides, i think we frequently do base morality on human nature. I don&#39;t think any of us have a right to make such grand statements. We should make risky predictions being tentative and skeptical along the way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wenty, you didnt answer my question.

[Wenty]

I was hoping others would respond to my post before I replied to you TAT, oh well maybe with this *bump* they will.


Then how do you explain homosexuality? A defect in the hetrosexual mind?

I answered this question a page or so ago.


Perhaps being gay is a consequence of our Evolution. Animals have very basic needs such as to eat, to reproduce. I find it hard to believe you would find a gay cat or dog. They are driven by their basic instincts whereas we have a greater intellect leading to other routes in sexuality.

It wasn&#39;t a definitive answer just an idea.

[Trissy]

your&#39;re stuck in a inferiorty rutt tristan&#33;

Well I suppose that&#39;s better then being seen as arrogant which is something I&#39;m usually charged with. Has anyone ever told you that you&#39;d make a good politician (or priest)? You have quite a skill for not answering a question, and drawing a debate away from an area that proves difficult for you...

It just begs the question inferior to whom? I don&#39;t think myself inferior, all I&#39;m trying to do is protect myself from those who would infer I was inferior from the position you had given them.


I was making the distinction because it was supposed in earlier posts by others that it was natural. What you&#39;re saying about why we make the distinction is for a different debate; besides I&#39;m not in a poistion to make grandiose suppositions about why we make distinctions for naturality.


Why is it for a different debate? Is it not linked with the current thread subject (ie homosexuality)?

Plus your position makes little sense. How can you be in the position to use a distinction but not question it for fear of making a grandiose supposition? You use distinctions like hot and cold, rich and poor, beautiful and ugly and yet I think that you could easily question yourself over why you use such distinctions. Are you trying to say you&#39;re just copying what other people do without questioning it? That doesn&#39;t seem very like you Adam...

[Wenty]

I rarely intend to avoid a question on purpose. Besides, my post wasn&#39;t avoiding the question, it was saying I&#39;m not in a position to answer it.


*We can use it to make moral statements.

*We can use it as a basis for expressing the superiority of certain things.

*We can use it to make statements about genetics and psychology

I agree with 1 but not in this case. Morality doesn&#39;t enter into my point about homosexuality not being natural, as I keep repeating its based on physiology mainly. The other point about majority I&#39;ll conceed for now but not permanently.

I disagree with 2 and 3 is right in that we use to so we can help people (primarily in psych. that is)

I think we make the distinction because we can, because its there to be made.

[El Tipo]

I dont know about gay&#39;s so much but I have heard that there are few types of them, those who have it naturally(hormons) and those with perversions of it, I am not against the naturally born gays but when it gets to perversions, well to me its sick, but I can live with that aslong as they leave me out of it. I should know more before I open my mouth, but these are my current opinions.

I shall not judge people for what they are, but sometimes I cannot understand the things they want to be.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 13 2004, 07:53 AM
I dont know about gay&#39;s so much but I have heard that there are few types of them, those who have it naturally(hormons) and those with perversions of it,
Hormens???

Anyway, what do you mean by perversion? I assume you mean someone who chooses this lifestyle...?


I am not against the naturally born gays but when it gets to perversions, well to me its sick,

...What is sick about wanting to have sex with a member of your own sex?


I shall not judge people for what they are, but sometimes I cannot understand the things they want to be.

You dont have to understand it...It has nothing to do with you&#33;

[cubist]

the only natural benifit i am aware of for homosexuality is a type of female lizard becomes more fertile after lesbian sex, so to me same sex sex is natural,

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to mention that Bonobos, our closest relatives, practice homosexuality.

SO much for the natural argument :lol:

[Wenty]

Bonobos? Who are they when they&#39;re at home.

I&#39;d like for you to expand on why that defeats the natural argument. My posts aren&#39;t defeated by it; if you read them.

[cubist]

wenty, you posts are defeated becuase naturally subjects in nature bonobos and these lizards have homosexual sex with out being trapped in a cage.

it is benificial to the nature of the lizards as they become more fertile from lesbian sex.

so natural it is

[Wenty]

I&#39;ll conceed it if its benefical, its natural, if its evolutionarily stable its natural. So if there are clear cut cases in the animal kingdom then so be it.

It isn&#39;t for humans though is it. I&#39;m not desparately trying to see homosexuality as unnatural at all costs. If theres enough evidence to suggest it is then I&#39;ll accept it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wenty, why are you so eager to prove homosexuality unnatural?

[cubist]

its not natural as its not benificial to humans but it is natural as it appears to be psycological these men and women are attracted to samesex as we are attracted to the opposite sex.

i am not against it becuase one day i could find a man i find attractive and want to FUCK even though i am completly heterosexual

[Wenty]

Wenty, why are you so eager to prove homosexuality unnatural?

Did you read my last post at all??


I&#39;m not desparately trying to see homosexuality as unnatural at all costs. If theres enough evidence to suggest it is then I&#39;ll accept it.

??

[Commie Girl]

WHo says what is "natural"? People do not "choose: to "become" gay....it is just the way some people are. I can not understand why someones sexual orientation is anyones business....


I know many homosexual couples that have just as strong of a committed relationship as anyone else...at least here they can get married if they want, have benefits from their partner, etc.

[Wenty]

You kind of answered your own question in that post. Anyway, that question has been brought up before. This debate has been raging for a while and we&#39;ve gradually slipped into this chat on naturality. There are many interested previous posts which answer that question if you take a look, thats if you&#39;ll ever read this...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

i dont see any thing un natural about it

[apathy maybe]

It is unnatural that the Earth revolves around the Sun&#33; But I&#39;ll accept any points that say why it is natural and I may change my position.

Not only that, it is unnatural for birds to fly. Look at the dodo, the kiewe (sp?), the emu etc. Therefore it is unnatural for birds to fly.

It is unnatural for living organisms to be multi-celled. The vast bulk of living things (both in weight and variety) are single-celled, therefor it is unnatural for living things to be muli-celled.

It is unnatural for people to live in cities and group together. For most of human existence people were hunter-gatherers (sp?).

It is unnatural for people to be white-skinned (I&#39;m a freak&#33;). The majority of people are not.

Just because something is in the minority doesn&#39;t mean that it is unnatural. In some cases it may well be. But in the case of homosexuality it is just as natural as hetrosexuality.

[(*]

Perhaps being gay is a consequence of our Evolution. Animals have very basic needs such as to eat, to reproduce. I find it hard to believe you would find a gay cat or dog. They are driven by their basic instincts whereas we have a greater intellect leading to other routes in sexuality.


I know a gay dog. I&#39;m dead serious.



Just because something is in the minority doesn&#39;t mean that it is unnatural. In some cases it may well be. But in the case of homosexuality it is just as natural as hetrosexuality.

True. I&#39;m going to use that.

[Wenty]

These points were covered earlier.

Also, I think you&#39;ve distorted somewhat my point on what is natural. I&#39;m not equating something thats natural to something that is superior; we decide to make that distinction, I don&#39;t think it follows &#39;naturally&#39;, as it were, from the distinction I&#39;m making.


It is unnatural for people to be white-skinned (I&#39;m a freak&#33;). The majority of people are not.

This analogy is only valid if you accept that being natural consequentially means superior.

The &#39;statisitcal&#39; or majority point is still partially valid although I accept it isn&#39;t 100% conclusive.

I think the main &#39;physiological&#39; point hasn&#39;t properly been contested and nor does it need to be. My points are in no way meant to assign superiority. I&#39;m merely looking at the evidence and forming an opinion.

[Rasta Sapian]

I am not gay, not agaist gays by any means....

whats the big deal anyway?

I am not a homophobe either,

I choose pussy, no ass, is that so wrong?

God gave me something, I feel it is my god given right to use it for what it was ment for&#33;

jah knows reefer grows. peace yall

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15 2004, 01:24 AM
It is unnatural that the Earth revolves around the Sun&#33; But I&#39;ll accept any points that say why it is natural and I may change my position.

Not only that, it is unnatural for birds to fly. Look at the dodo, the kiewe (sp?), the emu etc. Therefore it is unnatural for birds to fly.

It is unnatural for living organisms to be multi-celled. The vast bulk of living things (both in weight and variety) are single-celled, therefor it is unnatural for living things to be muli-celled.

It is unnatural for people to live in cities and group together. For most of human existence people were hunter-gatherers (sp?).

It is unnatural for people to be white-skinned (I&#39;m a freak&#33;). The majority of people are not.

Just because something is in the minority doesn&#39;t mean that it is unnatural. In some cases it may well be. But in the case of homosexuality it is just as natural as hetrosexuality.
I have gay friends and for sure, they were men&#39;t to be gay,

peace yall

[Guest1]

Wenty, ever consider the possibility that it is evolution&#39;s response to population explosion?

It is very good for a species to be very horny, but not if they fuck too fast and their food can&#39;t catch up to them. Then they&#39;d fuck themselves to extinction.

Is it any wonder then that amongst the species that seem to have sex the most, homosexuality has been found in abundance?

Rabbits, bonobos, dolphins, humans.

It may have been nature&#39;s way of introducing contraception into the mix, before we could invent our own.

[God of Imperia]

Maybe, but it isn&#39;t working very well
Overpopulation is a fact and it&#39;s a problem that keeps growing
You could also say that aids is nature&#39;s way to reduce the number of people alive, but you could say that of everything ...
Homosexuality is a natural thing and we should all respect and accept it
I heard the other day that Fidel is against it, is this true or not?

[Wenty]

Wenty, ever consider the possibility that it is evolution&#39;s response to population explosion?

Sure, its a possibility. However, evolution develops over a long period of time; how long have we been overpopulated? I know Malthus wrote an important book on it around the time of the French Revolution...