queers

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

FIRST AND FOREMOST: i sincerely apologise for using any such derogatory term. i have absolutely nothing against homosexuals or any other nonheterosexual-oriented person for that matter.

i used that title to catch attention, and am COMPLETELY OPPOSED to all forms of discrimination - we are all people.

ANYWAY. i recently took a poll on www.pollingpoint.com about the 'gay marriage issue.' personally, i am opposed to ALL marriage - i say, if two people truly love each other, why do they need a contract confiming it? but the way i sees it - why should homosexuals not be allowed to marry one another?

because the bible says so? who the fuck cares what the bible says these days? hell, most intelligent christians will agree that the bible is essentially all symbolic.

and besides... marriage has become a government institution - if you don't follow a faith, or if you and your spouse-to-be are of different religious orientation, you can simply go to the justice of the peace and get a marriage lisence.

or is it because it's not natural? because that ain't what the animals do? well, when was the last time we humans behaved as animals?

warfare, that's when. warfare, and prehistoric times. we are animals, but we are intelligent ones, and we have escaped the bounds of animal behaviour: animals don't kill each other out of greed or for revenge, only for survival. animals don't supress their own kind for monitary gain (capitalism). animals don't invent automobiles, computers, and space craft; animals don't write poetry, epics, and text books; animals are animals, we are humans.

or is it because we heterosexual people simply don't want to be reminded of what 'atrocities' homosexuals do to each other? well, what if the homosexuals don't want to be reminded of the 'normal' things that we heterosexuals do to each other?

and if you want to mention atrocities commited upon people by their preferred gender, then let us not forget how many men abuse their wives, cheat on their wives, contract diseases from prostitutes and spread them to their wives, etc.

and besides, who's to say that what homosexuals are doing to one another is wrong? there is no book written nor law established that determines what we're supposed to do to one another, and if there was, i guaran-fuckin-tee that waging war and enslaving of 'inferior' peoples would NOT be on it.

---

BUT A FEW THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME:

what kind of people are we to debate the lifestyle of somebody else? all i know is, i'm straight, and it's NONE of my business, and i should have NOTHING to say in the matter - it isn't me that any of these retarded nazi laws would be effecting.

AND THIS!!!!!1111one11eleven11!

WHERE DO THEY COME UP WITH THE CONCEPT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETICALLY DETERMINED TRAIT? how can homosexuality be a genetically determined trait? how many homosexuals do you know who can have kids and pass their genes on to another generation?

anyway... those are some of my thoughts...

[YSR]

Actually, same-sex sexual behaivor has been documented in quite a number of animal species.

As to the rest of the post: What?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 13 2006, 10:44 PM
Actually, same-sex sexual behaivor has been documented in quite a number of animal species.

As to the rest of the post: What?
i've never heard of any homosexual animals except when my aunt's dachshund was raped by a stray pitbull... but pitbulls are bred for war (nowadays) and they'll take what they can get... plus it doesn't help much that my aun't named her dog julian and makes the poor fucker wear a little bow...

and what do you mean, 'what?'.... read it, comrade... those are some of the best points you'll ever get without doing lots of smack. lol

[Comrade J]

FIRST AND FOREMOST: i sincerely apologise for using any such derogatory term. i have absolutely nothing against homosexuals or any other nonheterosexual-oriented person for that matter.

i used that title to catch attention, and am COMPLETELY OPPOSED to all forms of discrimination - we are all people.

Ok, so you only used the term 'queers' to get attention. So even though I am a white male, creating a thread called 'niggers' about black people would be perfectly acceptable, so long as I then claimed to have nothing against black people? :huh:



most intelligent christians
Oxymoron.


warfare, that's when. warfare, and prehistoric times. we are animals, but we are intelligent ones, and we have escaped the bounds of animal behaviour: animals don't kill each other out of greed or for revenge, only for survival. animals don't supress their own kind for monitary gain (capitalism). animals don't invent automobiles, computers, and space craft; animals don't write poetry, epics, and text books; animals are animals, we are humans.
No shit.


or is it because we heterosexual people simply don't want to be reminded of what 'atrocities' homosexuals do to each other? well, what if the homosexuals don't want to be reminded of the 'normal' things that we heterosexuals do to each other?
Huh? What's with all the 'we' stuff - you talk about homosexuals as though they are a distance species or society, perhaps living on a distant island. I've never heard homosexual sex being referred to as an atrocity.



and besides, who's to say that what homosexuals are doing to one another is wrong? there is no book written nor law established that determines what we're supposed to do to one another
Thats exactly it, there's nothing wrong with it, you're preaching to the converted, so to speak.



WHERE DO THEY COME UP WITH THE CONCEPT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETICALLY DETERMINED TRAIT? how can homosexuality be a genetically determined trait? how many homosexuals do you know who can have kids and pass their genes on to another generation?
So you don't know much about genetics then.
I do genetics as a course, and in a recent debate we came to the conclusion that homosexuality may indirectly be related to genetic inheritance (all to do with hormones)... your point about homosexuals not reproducing makes no sense. You're honestly trying to say, that because somebody does not reproduce, they cannot inherit genes? Are you aware of 'dominant' and 'recessive' alleles? Many illnesses and traits skip a generation or more, some skip several, it all depends on the genotype (which in turn effects the phenotype - what you see - eg. eye colour) which is why the inheritance theory was not immediately dismissed.


anyway... those are some of my thoughts...
Thankyou. Your mind is clearly a frightening place.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+Oct 13 2006, 10:51 PM--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ Oct 13 2006, 10:51 PM)
Young Stupid [email protected] 13 2006, 10:44 PM
Actually, same-sex sexual behaivor has been documented in quite a number of animal species.

As to the rest of the post: What?
i've never heard of any homosexual animals except when my aunt's dachshund was raped by a stray pitbull... but pitbulls are bred for war (nowadays) and they'll take what they can get... plus it doesn't help much that my aun't named her dog julian and makes the poor fucker wear a little bow...

and what do you mean, 'what?'.... read it, comrade... those are some of the best points you'll ever get without doing lots of smack. lol [/b]
Oh well, if you haven't heard of any cases then it mustn't be true. :huh:

I saw a documentary once about gay animals.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by Comrade J+--> (Comrade J)Ok, so you only used the term 'queers' to get attention. So even though I am a white male, creating a thread called 'niggers' about black people would be perfectly acceptable, so long as I then claimed to have nothing against black people? :huh: [/b]

tactics. i won't try to justify it, because i can't. that's why i apologised.


Originally posted by Comrade J+--> (Comrade J)
most intelligent christians
Oxymoron.[/b]

true lol. let me rephrase: most christians who have ALMOST evolved into cromagnon man.


Originally posted by Comrade J
Huh? What's with all the 'we' stuff - you talk about homosexuals as though they are a distance species or society, perhaps living on a distant island.

i refer to them as seperate from myself because i am not one of them. i'm not a part of their culture, and don't really know what kind of shit they have to deal with from heterosexuals, not to mention: liberal media, which treats them like a pet and conservative media, which treats them like a disease.


Originally posted by Comrade J
I've never heard homosexual sex being referred to as an atrocity.

conservatives especially do. they don't do it directly, and openly call them atrocious, but they have their tongue twisters, and i always get the feeling that's what's implied.

and... you didn't go to a public school did you? high school is still somewhat fresh in my memory, despite the drugs and alcohol... gay bashing is pretty common. hell, my senior year, a homosexual was hospitalised by being beaten by three other students because, apperantly, he flirted with one of them. dumb move on the homosexual's part, but brutality on the attackers' parts.


Originally posted by Comrade J
Thats exactly it, there's nothing wrong with it, you're preaching to the converted, so to speak.

aye, i know. just makin' me points is all.


Originally posted by Comrade J
So you don't know much about genetics then.
I do genetics as a course, and in a recent debate we came to the conclusion that homosexuality may indirectly be related to genetic inheritance (all to do with hormones)...

never said i did know a whole lot about genetics... i figured: genes are pased from parent to child, and a homosexual relation would produce no children. sorry for using me logic, mate.


Originally posted by Comrade J
your point about homosexuals not reproducing makes no sense. You're honestly trying to say, that because somebody does not reproduce, they cannot inherit genes? Are you aware of 'dominant' and 'recessive' alleles? Many illnesses and traits skip a generation or more, some skip several, it all depends on the genotype (which in turn effects the phenotype - what you see - eg. eye colour) which is why the inheritance theory was not immediately dismissed.

i was saying that, because they don't have children, they can't send their genes onto another generation, not that they cannot inherit genes from their parents. as for it being a recessive gene that's related to hormone production: how might i have known that, do you suppose? i didn't study much biology; preferred chemistry (which went into AP Chem) - genetics is BARELY brushed upon in chemistry, and that only about the chemical makeup of DNA, RNA, enzymes and protiens, etc.

but thanks for informing me.


Comrade [email protected]
Your mind is clearly a frightening place.

i suppose so... guess i can blame the drugs... or thank them...

say... why do you use unnecessary insults?


Comrade J
Oh well, if you haven't heard of any cases then it mustn't be true.

I saw a documentary once about gay animals.

weren't sayin' it weren't true, just that i'd never heard that. are we no longer allowed to admit that we're uninformed?

but ach, du lieber... gay animals... easier to see a documentary than to live a day in the life of poor little julian lo

[0ntology]

I for one don't see the point in having a title for those who are attracted to people of the same sex.

Titles such as 'gay', 'queer', 'lesbian', 'dyke', etc, nowadays all have negative connotations to them. Heterosexuals don't have a label/title, besides 'straight'.

I don't understand why people label, and are prejudice against these kind of things. There are more important issues in the world today.

I remember a while ago, on a television soap, there was much controversy over a same-sex relationship on television. People didn't want their children seeing 'lesbians' on t.v.

Recently, on the same show, there was a female dressed in nothing but a bra and underwear, attempting to seduce another male.

I think it's stupid for people to 'kick up a stink' about a peck on the mouth (really, that's all it was) between two girls, and then nothing was said about the underwear-clad woman, months later.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by ontology
I don't understand why people label, and are prejudice against these kind of things. There are more important issues in the world today.
In some ways I think that's the point. If people are busy working themselves into moral panics about queer people, black people or Muslims then they're too busy to pay attention to how people in powerful positions keep fucking them over. A climate of fear really helps those in power.


I remember a while ago, on a television soap, there was much controversy over a same-sex relationship on television. People didn't want their children seeing 'lesbians' on t.v.

Recently, on the same show, there was a female dressed in nothing but a bra and underwear, attempting to seduce another male.
Neighbours, by any chance? :P

[uber-liberal]

Here's a thought: let's get rid of the marital tax break and use the passage of an ammendment to the federal constitution as leverage.
"Well, if you want your tax break, Mr. Republican, then I would suggest you let the gay community drink from the well of tax shelters, too."
And, if you go to church and don't like it when the pastor marries gay people, CHANGE CHURCHES!!!

[0ntology]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 31, 2006 01:54 pm

Recently, on the same show, there was a female dressed in nothing but a bra and underwear, attempting to seduce another male.
Neighbours, by any chance? :P
Ha ha, yes it was Neighbours, back in the day, when I actually watched crap like that *hangs head in shame*

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ontology, good point, but if the fight for equaliy is to continue, we need to be able to specify what we are fighting for. An abstract "equal sexual descriptions for all" will not mobilse anyone.

So, until we actually get there, 'gay liberation' (or whatever) is a good rallying title.

Plus, it pisses off the homophobes and right-wing nutters.

That on its own is enough to recommend it.

[Oachkatzlschwoaf]

supposedly there is experimentation taking place with gay sheep to find a cure for homosexuality and other related "diseases".

two men or women should be allowed to marry each other if they wish.

from what i know about marriage (i might be wrong) you get married in the church, and married in the state?

i completly understand if the church decides to ban gay marriage. i mean if whatever writings they're following say a relationship with two people of the same sex is wrong, then i completly understand why they'd ban it.

the prohibition of that marriage though in the state is what bothers me. isn't the united states supposed to be seperated with religion and state? the state should marry anyone that wants to be married, regardless of sex.

[Cryotank Screams]

or is it because it's not natural? because that ain't what the animals do? well, when was the last time we humans behaved as animals?

There is loads of information and proof that homosexuality exists within nature.


or is it because we heterosexual people simply don't want to be reminded of what 'atrocities' homosexuals do to each other? well, what if the homosexuals don't want to be reminded of the 'normal' things that we heterosexuals do to each other?

Now your making it sound like we are abnormal, and you "straights," are normal.


and besides, who's to say that what homosexuals are doing to one another is wrong?

And what exactly am I doing to my bf? :blink:


what kind of people are we to debate the lifestyle of somebody else?

It's not a lifestyle, it is an instinctual natural attraction, just like heterosexuality.


WHERE DO THEY COME UP WITH THE CONCEPT THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETICALLY DETERMINED TRAIT?

Your missing the point on that one, and missing it entirely, those studies I assume are trying to prove that homosexuality is natural, and not a choice.