Homosexuality

[banned2006]

Personally, the physical or psychological condition (created by hormonal irregularities) is not the issue with me here. I could care less what condition people are subject to, it is as long as they are comfortable with it and can continue through life being productive members of society.

However, what is the problem with me is the subculture created by persons of different sexual orientations and conditions. People may think that this is a fascist stance, not true, I don't wish for these people to be mass extirminated. What I see these days is homosexuality being accepted by juveniles who are not even homosexual in persuasion. Young girls, for instance, are today more likely to engage in sexual intercourse with other girls than men. I blame this on the propagation of overt sexuality that the media displays.

In all, let people be who they are, it is acceptable and should be. However, society needs not to confuse its genders and sexual orientation.

[TC]

Antonio Gramsci writes

I do not agree with homosexuality. I will not persecute it nor will advocate it. Obviously it is a product of Nature, and being a materialist I permit Nature to run her course.

:huh: lol what the fuck does it mean to 'disagree' with homosexuality or any other product of nature? When its raining do you say "I do not agree with the weather today"?


When it comes down to it, everyone is human, but there are many psychological disorders.

There is nothing materialist about the classification of psychological disorders, its a purely social construct to determine what is 'ordered' and 'disorderd', thats a subjective judgement given that there is no objective material criteria for determining this.


Fascists are undesirable creatures and I would rather see to their demise than permit them to flourish. For me to persecute others along that line (possessing a social or psychological defect that I find distasteful) would make me hypocritical.

I think your homophobia and increadibly affected prose is pretty distasteful...

[KC]

I do not agree with homosexuality.

This makes about as much sense as saying "I do not agree with photosynthesis."


I will not persecute it nor will advocate it.

??? Who advocates homosexuality? What we advocate and defend is the right for all people to be treated equally, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference.


there are many psychological disorders.

Homosexuality isn't a disorder.


What I see these days is homosexuality being accepted by juveniles who are not even homosexual in persuasion.

Firstly, how do you know this? Where did you get this stance from? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim?
Secondly, why does it matter what people do? If a straight person wants to mess around with a member of the same sex because they're curious or something, what business is it to you?



In all, let people be who they are, it is acceptable and should be. However, society needs not to confuse its genders and sexual orientation.

Hypocrit.

[banned2006]

Tragic Clown,

If you do not know what the "fuck" I meant about me not agreeing with homosexuality, let me fill you in: I don't like it, I find it distasteful and something I'd rather stay away from. Men acting like women simply nauseates me, I just do not find it normal. This is a personal opinion, are you so grand in design that you wish to dictate how I think?

To open another issue: How and when did homosexuals become amended into our "broad middle class" to the point that we must defend their way of life? Who is the enemy here? These politics are parallel to contemporary Democrats, maybe that is more in line with your programme.

I think that you should ease off on the critique of everyone's postings as if you feel the need to give a word to everything said. Voice your opinions and move on, your bickering does nothing here.

[EusebioScrib]

If you do not know what the "fuck" I meant about me not agreeing with homosexuality, let me fill you in: I don't like it, I find it distasteful and something I'd rather stay away from. Men acting like women simply nauseates me, I just do not find it normal. This is a personal opinion, are you so grand in design that you wish to dictate how I think?

Men acting like women? Way to reinforce gender roles. I think Gramsci here should be restricted to OI...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with "men acting like women."

Your restricting our struggle to merely the economic field is so Leninist. You ever think that besides being exploited and oppressed in the "factory" that we are also exploited and oppressed in the "social factory"?

If I can't have sex with another man, then I want no part in your "revolution".

[EusebioScrib]

Gramsci: And in regards to your anti-subculture spiel.

Subcultures develop when certain groups of people cannot "fit in" to mainstream culture. So, they create an alternative culture for themselves.

What do you want them to do? "Assimilate" to mainstream capitalist culture? Ah, yes, just give into their cultural hegemony, eh Gramsci?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Antonio [email protected] 29 2006, 10:08 PM
I don't like it, I find it distasteful and something I'd rather stay away from. Men acting like women simply nauseates me.
So you don't mind manly homosexuals? Or do they not exist in your narrow little world view?



I just do not find it normal. This is a personal opinion, are you so grand in design that you wish to dictate how I think?

Think about that for a second, what if a cappie said to you: "I just don't find equality for the workers to be normal. This is my personal opinion. Are you so grand in design (sorry I can't finish this piece of crap, typing such pretentious shit makes me feel dirty.)" Would you just think 'Fair enough there mate I'd best rethink this whole emancipation of the workers thing.


To open another issue: How and when did homosexuals become amended into our "broad middle class" to the point that we must defend their way of life? Who is the enemy here? These politics are parallel to contemporary Democrats, maybe that is more in line with your programme.

The enemy is the ruling class. The reason we are defending homosexuality is that homophobia is just a way of dividing the working class. just like racism and sexism. On a more personal note I'm defending homosexuality because I cannot find anything wrong with it, no matter how hard I try (admittedly I don't try too hard.).

[Ferg]

Originally posted by Antonio [email protected] 28 2006, 03:06 AM
Personally, the physical or psychological condition (created by hormonal irregularities) is not the issue with me here. I could care less what condition people are subject to, it is as long as they are comfortable with it and can continue through life being productive members of society.

However, what is the problem with me is the subculture created by persons of different sexual orientations and conditions. People may think that this is a fascist stance, not true, I don't wish for these people to be mass extirminated. What I see these days is homosexuality being accepted by juveniles who are not even homosexual in persuasion. Young girls, for instance, are today more likely to engage in sexual intercourse with other girls than men. I blame this on the propagation of overt sexuality that the media displays.

In all, let people be who they are, it is acceptable and should be. However, society needs not to confuse its genders and sexual orientation.
Fascist does not imply extermination. Benito Mussolini was a fascist and he didn't kill people en masse.

[Avtomatov]

I dont actually mind real fascism. It was incredibly progressive for its time. Read the fascist manifesto.

[EusebioScrib]

I dont actually mind real fascism. It was incredibly progressive for its time. Read the fascist manifesto.

It sounds like your asking to be restricted to OI :huh: I hope not though, cuz your fun to debate with :wub:

Fascism is not progressive by any means. It is the ultimate reaction to workers' power. It's a last resort. It only developed as a result of the conditions of post-war economies.

[black magick hustla]

hey guys i also disagree with homosexuality

i dont mind homosexuals as long that as they are 500 m away from me and my family however i do find pretty disgusting that they make out in front of me

what do they think they are anyway making out in front of little children making them witness their moral perversion :wacko:

homosexuality is not natural god created dicks and vaginas for them to be compatible you cannot put a dick inside another dick can you

it was adam and eve not adam and steve :angry:

homosexuaility is bourgeois decadence :blush:

[saint max]

Gramsci: If you do not know what the "fuck" I meant about me not agreeing with homosexuality, let me fill you in: I don't like it, I find it distasteful and something I'd rather stay away from. Men acting like women simply nauseates me, I just do not find it normal. This is a personal opinion, are you so grand in design that you wish to dictate how I think?


Eus: Men acting like women? Way to reinforce gender roles...Homosexuality has nothing to do with "men acting like women.

Actually, I think our little gramscian protégé above illustrates how homophobia and heterosexism has quite a bit to do with Gender and it's construction. His opposition, and most perhaps, to queerness has more to do with the rupture within the Gender Binary, than a hatred of weakness and feminine (following the Old garde...)

Gender was becoming impossible. However, the assimilation of homosexuality within civil society is recuperating a homosexual genders, and dislocating the queer subject to a new arena of struggle--a struggle against Gender it's self.

Unfortunatley for our connoisseur of straight bodies, there are becoming less and less of yall. The category it's self is being thrown into crisis. But what did you expect, Have you read even heteronormative fashion magazines recently?

As another queer once said "heteroseuxality is'nt normal, just common" And by "common," i think what they mean is boring.

kisses,
-Max

[EusebioScrib]

Marmot: I hope your joking :huh:

St.Max:


As another queer once said "heteroseuxality is'nt normal, just common" And by "common," i think what they mean is boring.

Biologically speaking, heterosexuality is how we are "supposed to be" as it's how we reproduce. Doesn't mean we have to obey nature, does it? :P

[imperialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:48 AM
hey guys i also disagree with homosexuality

i dont mind homosexuals as long that as they are 500 m away from me and my family however i do find pretty disgusting that they make out in front of me

what do they think they are anyway making out in front of little children making them witness their moral perversion :wacko:

homosexuality is not natural god created dicks and vaginas for them to be compatible you cannot put a dick inside another dick can you

it was adam and eve not adam and steve :angry:

homosexuaility is bourgeois decadence :blush:
lol :lol: That's a good one.

[banned2006]

Question: Where does this sexual abstraction that you wish to impose upon society stop? You may want to have sex with a man (nauseating), but Joe Smo wants to have sex with a 4 year old boy - where are the restrictions to this?

I guess what you advance is that whatever is good is good, no? Well, I utilize violence only for the means of the end, but if you or Joe Smo flips and decides you want to sleep with my 7 year-old son, you'll not receive any comradery from me - only two barrels up your worn out purple circle.

This is downright senseless...

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by EusebioScrib+--> (EusebioScrib)Biologically speaking, heterosexuality is how we are "supposed to be" as it's how we reproduce. Doesn't mean we have to obey nature, does it? [/b]

That's not the case at all - people are 'supposed to be' queer, if this was not the case than EVERYONE who is queer would be 'queer by choice' and that is very clearly not the case. That people are born queer means that queer is 'obeying nature'.


Gramsci
Question: Where does this sexual abstraction that you wish to impose upon society stop? You may want to have sex with a man (nauseating), but Joe Smo wants to have sex with a 4 year old boy - where are the restrictions to this?

I guess what you advance is that whatever is good is good, no?

Repeating the old cliches, if homosexuality is 'ok', where to? Child molestation? Incest? :rolleyes:

Sexual liberation stops at consent - as soon as someone cannot consent to sex, it is no longer acceptable - its' rape - an infringement on anothers freedom - consent has to be established, though with children this is notoriously difficult.

[bcbm]

Incest?

If its consensual, who cares?

[bombeverything]

However, what is the problem with me is the subculture created by persons of different sexual orientations and conditions.

What do you mean about their being a "problem" with people fighting for equality?


People may think that this is a fascist stance, not true, I don't wish for these people to be mass extirminated.

How generous of you.


What I see these days is homosexuality being accepted by juveniles who are not even homosexual in persuasion. Young girls, for instance, are today more likely to engage in sexual intercourse with other girls than men. I blame this on the propagation of overt sexuality that the media displays.

What is the "problem" with "young girls having sex with other girls instead of men"? Sounds like jealousy to me :D. Get over it.


However, society needs not to confuse its genders and sexual orientation.

What exactly do you mean by this?


I don't like it, I find it distasteful and something I'd rather stay away from. Men acting like women simply nauseates me, I just do not find it normal. This is a personal opinion, are you so grand in design that you wish to dictate how I think?

This is nothing but overt homophobia. If it isn't, then why would it concern you so much?


Originally posted by Antonio [email protected] 30 2006, 04:46 AM
Question: Where does this sexual abstraction that you wish to impose upon society stop? You may want to have sex with a man (nauseating), but Joe Smo wants to have sex with a 4 year old boy - where are the restrictions to this?

I guess what you advance is that whatever is good is good, no? Well, I utilize violence only for the means of the end, but if you or Joe Smo flips and decides you want to sleep with my 7 year-old son, you'll not receive any comradery from me - only two barrels up your worn out purple circle.

This is downright senseless...

Equating sexual liberation with rape is senseless.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Antonio [email protected] 28 2006, 03:06 AM

Young girls, for instance, are today more likely to engage in sexual intercourse with other girls than men. I blame this on the propagation of overt sexuality that the media displays.


I think that there is nothing wrong with Young girls being today more likely to engage in sexual intercourse with other girls than men. But if you think that it is wrong, you can blame heterosexual men for it. The porn movies and even the advertisments or the Hollywood are full of girl-on-girl action, because the majority of heterosexual men enjoy this kind of action.

[LSD]

Question: Where does this sexual abstraction that you wish to impose upon society stop?

The only person trying to "impose" anything onto "society" here is you.

No one is trying to "recruit" you or "convert" you or force you to do anything you don't want to. You on the other hand are calling other people's orientation "disgusting" and "nauseating' and are promoting discrimination against them.


You may want to have sex with a man (nauseating), but Joe Smo wants to have sex with a 4 year old boy - where are the restrictions to this?

Restrictions come in, and indeed can only come in, when one's actions are detrimental to another member of society. As children are not developmentally or psychosocially mature enough to consent to sexual relationships with adults, any attempt by an adult to initiate sexual contact with a child is abuse by definition.

What two consenting adults choose to do with one another, however, is nobody's business by their own.

It doesn't matter how "nauseating" you may consider it, because it doesn't harm anyone, society has absolutely no right to intervene and you, out of basic human decency, have an obligation to shut up and deal with it.


if you or Joe Smo flips and decides you want to sleep with my 7 year-old son, you'll not receive any comradery from me

People don't "flip" their sexual orientation. Pedophilia is a sexual paraphilia in and of itself; it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

In fact, if we're going to talk about pedophilia, it should be noted that statistically speaking, you are more likely to "flip" that the homosexual "Joe" of your hypothetical.

Remember, the overwhelming majority of child abusers are heterosexual.

[banned2006]

This is my thing... People can do what they want sexually, I just don't care for it. I'm sure that you all can have your sexual liberation without my consent; I personally see bigger issues in the economic realm of our struggle rather than what people do beneath the sheets.

I think personally that to confine yourself politically to what people can do behind closed doors is a waste of energy. But to say that legalities concerning sexual intercourse can only be applied when consent is not present is garbage, pedophiles will concoct methods in order to attract youth into their fold, just as young, confused boys are questioning if they are homosexual because they are goaded into thinking that it is OK. If Joe Smo isn't Johnny Football by 8th grade, he is more likely to engage in a lifestyle that is counterproductive - drugs, fascism, or pop homosexuality.

Restrictions are needed. I personally wouldn't permit a man painted purple having sex with a turtle outside my house, but somewhere someone will say that this is progressive and liberating.

[LSD]

I personally see bigger issues in the economic realm of our struggle rather than what people do beneath the sheets.

I agree, there really shouldn't be an issue og gay discrimination ...unfortunately, howver, there is.

And your position is akin to saying that we should ignore racism and sexism because the economic realm is "more important". There can be no dobut that the oppression of the worker is the central abuse in modern capitalist society, but it is by no means the only one.


But to say that legalities concerning sexual intercourse can only be applied when consent is not present is garbage

And why is that?

Precisely what business that the government (especially the bourgeois one) have in deciding what two consenting adults choose to do with one another? Do you really want to grant the state the authority to dictate "appropriate" behaviour?

Who is hurt when two men or two women have sex? Who is "harmed" when two people pleasure one another?


pedophiles will concoct methods in order to attract youth into their fold

And since, again, prepubescent children are incapable of consenting on sexual matters, any sexual encounter between an adult and a child is abuse by definition. If consent cannot be given then it cannot be given.

That's the whole point.


just as young, confused boys are questioning if they are homosexual because they are goaded into thinking that it is OK.

It is "OK".

Unless you can provide rational evidence to the contrary?

[banned2006]

You feel it is "OK". That is your personal opinion. If we dealt with the human species strictly from a natural perspective, we would see that it is a deleterious characteristic. However, as we deal with humans as social creatures and not like dogs, we permit it due to humanitarian sentiment.

I personally do not have this sentiment. My fight is in the economic doctrine. Racism is a plague on the construction of all people's living in unison, but it is the dissension and differences between races that creates this static relationship. If races cannot get along, that is something that will prove our failure.

Homosexuality is for those who enjoy it. I do not, therefore I will not see any good come from fighting even harder for those to keep continue what they do anyway. Homosexuals will do the nasty regardless, I will concern myself with other issues; the certain people who see it different will fight on the contrary, but spearheading the enemy from difference angles is what makes us much more effective.

[EusebioScrib]

Okay, so your not gay or bi, so what? Any revolutionary would support sexual liberation. It is another front which the bourgeois attacks us at. We are exploited in the social factory as well as the factory.

Your discussing things which do not pertain to this arguement. Pedophilia? Human-Animal sex? This is about homosexuality. A fully consenting lifestyle.

If you don't care if homosexuals are repressed, then you are no Marxist. You should support the autonomy of homosexuals to do as they wish.

Gramsci, your such a neo-puritan. You need to 1. Get laid and 2. Make sure it's by a man and 3. Get a cock in your mouth...trust me...you'll love it.

[banned2006]

I don't know how anyone of your character can parallel themselves with those that forged and sacrificed themselves to construct the thing that you declare a "struggle". If Che was alive to date he would spit in your face with overtones that you speak of.

I think what you need to do is drag yourself through the gutter a bit more and ferment your deeds with the sludge of abstraction a bit more. Only then would you be right. Your type would make good rope-swingers - spare me your acrobatic lingo and remove yourself from this Movement. You do nothing but bring down those that act pro-actively to tear down the reaction.

Say if I was to do what you suggest. Would it make me a better man? If so in your eyes, then I would never stand beside you. People like you didn't make revolution, you only foster the disfunction that harbors the vox populi to make it easier. Frankly, your better off with a bullet than in the ranks.

[LSD]

You feel it is "OK". That is your personal opinion. If we dealt with the human species strictly from a natural perspective, we would see that it is a deleterious characteristic.

How so?

I'm still waiting for you to provide one example how homosexuality is in any way "harmful" or "deleterious" to anyone.

I'm not surprised that you've not managed to provide one, of course. That kind of biggoted nonsense has long been disproven. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your assertion, it will still be meaningless superstition unless you can defy all evidence and provide proof.

So, come on, what's your evidence that homosexuality is a "deleterious characteristic"?


Racism is a plague on the construction of all people's living in unison

And so is heterosexism. Any artificial "differences" among the working class are to the advantage of the bourgeoisie and must be opposed. Whether it's based on gender, "race", or sexual orientation, all such divisions must be fought.

By accepting bourgeois conservative nonsense about homosexuality being "abnormal" or "wrong", you are playing right into the capitalists' hands. Not only are you helping to perpetuate their artificial boundries, but you are doing their oppression for them.

You're like the South African "communists" who thought that they could "integrate" "communism" with racism.

Communism is about liberation from all constraining bounds, whether they be economic, social, or "moral". We have no time for "Judeo-Christian values" or the nonsense they represent; nor do we have respect for those who "live by them".

You want to hate people? Fine. But don't you dare call yourself a "leftist"!


Homosexuality is for those who enjoy it.

As is heterosexuality.


You do nothing but bring down those that act pro-actively to tear down the reaction.

And what precisely do you do, aside from calling people names and trying to spread your tired reactionary conservative nonsense. You have nothing in common with the revolutionary movement, you who promotes righist filith and condemns your brorther and sister workers for their "lifestyle". :angry:

You are a bigot, a fanatic, and a fool; and I am ashamed that you would even use the word "leftist" in decribing yourself.

You and I have nothing in common and I hope to see you banned from this site at the earliest possible convenience.

[bombeverything]

I second LSD's comments.


Your type would make good rope-swingers - spare me your acrobatic lingo and remove yourself from this Movement. You do nothing but bring down those that act pro-actively to tear down the reaction.

Say if I was to do what you suggest. Would it make me a better man? If so in your eyes, then I would never stand beside you. People like you didn't make revolution, you only foster the disfunction that harbors the vox populi to make it easier. Frankly, your better off with a bullet than in the ranks.

:angry:

Perhaps you should try to use these arguments with "real life" leftists and see what response you get. My guess it that it will be you who will be standing alone - and rightly so. The fact that you interpreted EusebioScrib's comments as a threat to your "manhood" is indeed laughable. You are a homophobe and your narrow-minded, ignorant views have no place here.

[red team]

cropophilia, necrophilia and pedophilia is hereditary? :blink:

Not that there's anything legally or ethically "wrong" with it, but I think you've been smoking too much narcotics if you think these are hereditary sexual traits. :rolleyes:

With homosexuality I can see how it could be hereditary, but shit-eating and having sex with dead people?

[EusebioScrib]

If Che was alive to date he would spit in your face with overtones that you speak of.

Ah, I recall seeing you in a photo with comrade Che during his last days...although you were probably someone who helped the CIA get him...reactionary


Say if I was to do what you suggest. Would it make me a better man?

Yes, it most definitly would. It would make you more secure with your sexuality, it would expose you to new ideas, and make you feel more confident.



People like you didn't make revolution, you only foster the disfunction that harbors the vox populi to make it easier.

:(


Frankly, your better off with a bullet than in the ranks.

Is that a threat?...

Bleh, my work here is done...I'm outta this thread...

[Marx_was_right!]

Say if I was to do what you suggest. Would it make me a better man? If so in your eyes, then I would never stand beside you. People like you didn't make revolution, you only foster the disfunction that harbors the vox populi to make it easier. Frankly, your better off with a bullet than in the ranks.
Such division in the ranks. You are a disgrace to the Revolution. Revolutoinareis do not shoot each other. I actually think you should take EusoScribs advice as well as stop making childsh threats. Get back in line or get out. Your not a socliast if you ignore social reality. You are merely totalitarian, which is only half the equation.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marx_was_right!@Jul 2 2006, 10:46 AM
Such division in the ranks. You are a disgrace to the Revolution. Revolutoinareis do not shoot each other. I actually think you should take EusoScribs advice as well as stop making childsh threats. Get back in line or get out. Your not a socliast if you ignore social reality. You are merely totalitarian, which is only half the equation.
It's none of the equation, totalitarianism has absolutely nothing to do with most strands of socialism, wanna be Stalin's like yourself are a sad marginalised minority in the modern leftist movement.

Im not going to "get in line" just because some 16 year old thretaned to kick me out of communism over the internet...

This is absurd beyond belief. :lol:

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Antonio [email protected] 28 2006, 03:06 AM
I don't wish for these people to be mass extirminated.
It is funny how at the end you finally reveal your real sentiments

QUOTE
Frankly, your better off with a bullet than in the ranks.

I will say something else that has beenignored throughtout this thread; there is a high possibility that your dislike for gays is just a hidden type of misogyny. I really wonder why ""Men acting like women simply nauseates you"", while you say nothing about women acting like men. In the same way many people who share your believes cry all the time against the "feminization of men", while they do not seem to care about the "masculinazation of women". If you consider male homosexuality as the loss of manliness in men and female homosexuality as the loss of femininity in women, and if you consider the loss of manliness( male homosexuality) worse that the loss of femininity( female homosexuality), isn't this a sign that you consider masculinity superior to femininity? Men superior to women? Let's be sincere; The vast majority of you who oppose gay rights, also oppose feminism; You may support women when you listen that in some countries they are forced to wear burqas, or they are forced to marry a person they do not like, but you deny to them full equality;you still consider that it is their job to stay in the house, you still consider that the man should be the ruler, a kind ruler offcourse, but still a ruler, you still deny the fact that women should indulge the same level of sexual liberation as men. Many of you want to attack women's rights, but because you are afraid that you will be called a fascist, you attack gay rights, which is a more lefitimate and easy target.