Gay Bashing/Morality/Biblical Fallacies

[BrokenCrimson]

I thought the idea of bashing someone for the mere fact that you don't like them because of their sexuality was horrific, but recently a good friend of mine nearly got beaten up because some wigger doesn't like him. The said wigger has a gay brother I'm on good terms with. Ten on four, I'm one of the four, nowhere to run, the only reason we got away with it is because a cousin of a distant friend was a hommie chick and she talked them out of it. Feel free to say anything even if it is homophobic, I wouldn't mind to see an opposite view for this.

I also realise that I'm no being "tr00 br00tal BM" by being so liberal, lolollolol. :smash: :angel: :birthday:

[cxmachine]

ok so your friend is gay? or just wigger's brother? clarify the whole gay bashing thing please :)

[BrokenCrimson]

Friend gay. Wigger's brother gay. Me familiar with wigger's brother. Me familiar with wigger. Me talk like retard.

[Tattered]

I dont get it.. :confused:

[Sodomaniac]

I am confused ... :confused:

[brainsforbreakfast]

I think I kinda understand what your saying, but tell is more. Why did they start chasing or bashing him?

[cxmachine]

ok i'm home from school, my short view on things before i nap b4 work.
gay bashing is stupid... as funny as this sounds coming from me it's not going to solve anything in this case. gay bashings don't make the person less gay. my general rules on homosexuality are as follows

fuck whatever you desire just do not either throw it in my face (i'm just as proud about my love for the opposite sex as you are for the same, it's a given, don't shove it down my throat), hit on me or screw with me after they know i'm straight or hit on me before finding out, and if their a female (myself being a male, effeminate as i can be) don't lead me on if your not interested in male companionship.

beyond that i don't care. as for violence against them... i may have a distaste for homosexuality.. but violence is just wrong in cases such as this... however removing a wigger from society is a different matter altogether. they are just human refuse waiting to be disposed of

ok i'm done and going to lay down, try not to flame me, i was trying to be nice (mostly)

[G_urr_A]

Fuck whatever you want, as long as it approves of it.
Only kill things for being the way they are if it's inheritable.

Those two statements would nicely summarize my view on what you described.

[Transient]

blatant homosexuals are no better than wiggers. dont act like a flaming homo and you wont get "persecuted". if you like guys, fine, but dont act like youre trying out for queer eye all day long.

[BrokenCrimson]

Don't act like a flaming homo? Did you ever think that this is their way of expression? Your way of expression might be wearing a band shirt and docs , theirs would be acting like they do. This is comparable to having unorthodox views - don't express your views and your life will be easy. Express or do something about them and have mud trown at you. Also, a lot of gay people are not very flamboyant, my friend dresses well and hugs people goodbye, but he doesn't go "shoosshing" or 'zaaap" or "be nice". They heard from someone else that he was gay.

[Morbid+Roach]

blatant homosexuals are no better than wiggers. dont act like a flaming homo and you wont get "persecuted". if you like guys, fine, but dont act like youre trying out for queer eye all day long.No shit. If, for whatever reason, you don't chicks and like guys instead, that's fine, but what's with all the, "Oh my God, Billy! You're shoes are so cute!" It's basically like they are running around yelling, "I'm gay! I'm gay!", when nobody really cares or wants to know.

[BrokenCrimson]

So you're justifying the fact that they're beaten because you don't like the way they act? To quote the wigger "I'm gonna bash him cuz I don't like him". TADA!

This is about far more than sexuality, there is such a thing as gender identity, there are more than two genders both physically and mentally. It would be okay for a woman to act like a gay man does. Women like pink, boys don't cry. However, there are people who don't quite fit, for example, tomboys. Mentally, I don't see myself as either, so therefore my mental gender can be called androgyne, while I'm physically female (there's a difference between sex and gender). You see, it just happens that a lot of gay people are mentally female or close to it so they act it. For them, acting "straight" would be as unnatural as it would be for a heterosexual man to go around atcing like a sorocity girl.

[Transient]

Don't act like a flaming homo? Did you ever think that this is their way of expression? Your way of expression might be wearing a band shirt and docs , theirs would be acting like they do. This is comparable to having unorthodox views - don't express your views and your life will be easy. Express or do something about them and have mud trown at you. Also, a lot of gay people are not very flamboyant, my friend dresses well and hugs people goodbye, but he doesn't go "shoosshing" or 'zaaap" or "be nice". They heard from someone else that he was gay.


well then, thats fine. i dont mind people that are simply gay and dont make a huge deal out of it. but i dont feel the need to express myself through my clothing or behavior. generally im opposed to self expression. keep your thoughts and ideas to yourself, because chances are youll piss somebody off and be worse off than if you just sat there quietly. although i do realize that some people dont agree and will not act the way i do. so it goes, but i dont think being gay means you have to act (and talk, why do gays disproportionatly lisp? im not going by the stereotype, just wondering because ive seen it so many times IN REAL LIFE)

[G_urr_A]

It would be okay for a woman to act like a gay man does.

Not really. If I see someone acting like your typical mr. Gay stereotype, I'd be annoyed, regardless of the persons physical sex.

[Rapture]

Not really. If I see someone acting like your typical mr. Gay stereotype, I'd be annoyed, regardless of the persons physical sex.

agreed. i would never be gay, and i never support peoples homosexuality. i do not attack it either.

[Trendkill_420]

I have absolutely no problem with gay people.
Don't take this wrong, but being gay is just genetic flaw. The male body's reproductive system is made to coincide with a female's reproductive system.
So being gay is similiar to being born cross-eyed or with webbed feet.

I know many gay people, and I get along fine with them. I treat them like people which they are. I don't get angry when a gay man checks me out because desire is human nature. (I check out chicks).
What I don't get is the parades. Yes they're proud to be gay. But we don't see bestiality parades, or straight parades, or alcoholic parades.
The funny thing is, most homophobes I have known, have turned out to be gay.

[G_urr_A]

I don't get angry when a gay man checks me out because desire is human nature.

Admit it man, it feels good to know you're hot, even if it's a man in his fifties checking you out!! ;)

About the parades, I agree. Though, I don't really mind their pride, or that behaviour, it's mainly that it gets in the way of the rest of us. Pretty much like sports fans clogging up the cities because their team won an important game. I don't give a damn about said sports event (or gay pride), I just want to get where I want to go, and they delay me.

[Trendkill_420]

lol. It's funny cuz it's true.
My girlfriend was laughin one night after we passed a group of gay guys outside a club. I asked "what's so funny". She told me they were lookin at my ass, and I burst out laughing. Mean's the chicks are too.

[BLS]

OH MY GAWD FEGGITS!!!11oneone

RUN!!!!! T3H WILL ASSRAPE US!!!! OH NOEZ!!11 :rolleyes:

[BassBehemoth]

Man BLS shut up, your probably gay yourself.


I don't mind gay people, I mean I can respect people for who they are. Although unlike Trendkill I wouldn't really want a gay guy to hit on me.


They're just people...ha you fucking americans with your prejudice(sp?) fucking president...I pitty you.

[Trendkill_420]

I don't want gay guys to hit on me. I just find it humorous when they do.

[Dyldo]

It is a stupid thing that some do. Definatly 100% enviormental.

[Dissection]

blatant homosexuals are no better than wiggers. dont act like a flaming homo and you wont get "persecuted". if you like guys, fine, but dont act like youre trying out for queer eye all day long.

No, see, thats flawed. Homo's have the right to express themselves as long as it is not hitting on me, or making others feel uncomfortable. Just because you have a thing against them does not make it wrong for them to live their lives.

Gay Bashing -> Wrong

They've got it hard enough in our country. Why make it worse?

[Transient]

Man BLS shut up, your probably gay yourself.


I don't mind gay people, I mean I can respect people for who they are. Although unlike Trendkill I wouldn't really want a gay guy to hit on me.


They're just people...ha you fucking americans with your prejudice(sp?) fucking president...I pitty you.

i pity you for living in such a godforsaken shitty country. youre like a fat retard bastard son of scandinavia

you suck at everything. you yourself are predjudist for making fun of americans

youre a fucking idiot, and halifax is the shittiest nightmare of a town ive ever visited in my life. i went there once and it was like the entire place was full of people with downsyndrome. it was lobstershacks and mountains as far as the eye could see

you are culturally inferior.

[Dissection]

I'm more than fine with gay people unless one hits on me. But even then, I wouldn't be a fucking asshole about it. There isn't a single fucking reason for it.

[Dissection]

i pity you for living in such a godforsaken shitty country. youre like a fat retard bastard son of scandinavia

you suck at everything. you yourself are predjudist for making fun of americans

youre a fucking idiot, and halifax is the shittiest nightmare of a town ive ever visited in my life. i went there once and it was like the entire place was full of people with downsyndrome. it was lobstershacks and mountains as far as the eye could see

you are culturally inferior.

We also live in America. We have no right to bash anyone else about their country being shit. We have Bush as President; not that I have to remind you.

[BassBehemoth]

you suck at everything. you yourself are predjudist for making fun of americans

youre a fucking idiot, and halifax is the shittiest nightmare of a town ive ever visited in my life. i went there once and it was like the entire place was full of people with downsyndrome. it was lobstershacks and mountains as far as the eye could see

you are culturally inferior.


You call me prejudist when you hurl false insults? You talk like America is the most beautiful girl that everyone wants to fuck.
Hahaha, when were you in Halifax? Hmm...I've lived here all my life and have never saw 1 lobstershack in the city of Halifax in my life.You could see moutains as far as the eye could see? That's funny considering Nova Scotia is a FUCKING PENISULA YOU STUPID SHIT. :rolleyes:

[timedragon]

I'm more than fine with gay people unless one hits on me. But even then, I wouldn't be a fucking asshole about it. There isn't a single fucking reason for it.
same here. if one hits on me, i tell them to stop... not punch them in the face. gay people dont bother me, at all. but i do laugh at them a lot. not to their face though. besides i like lesbians, so gay guys arent all that different when you consider the morality of it all.

Transient: youre right! what the fuck is with the lisp!!!???

[Agent-Orange]

I hate gays and wiggers, and I hated your story. I like halford and lesbians. I don't give a shit if I am a hypocrite, Fuck You!

[Dissection]

I hate gays and wiggers, and I hated your story. I like halford and lesbians. I don't give a shit if I am a hypocrite, Fuck You!

Uh, yeah, but I guess I won't even try to question that one.

[Rapture]

a gay guy hit on my friend the other night as we were leaving a concert. it was probably the single funniest thing ever. this guy was full on trying to mack my friend. he kinda made a move on me, but not really. im not ashamed to say, my friend is much better looking

[Dissection]

Uh... riiiiiiight. :)

[Tattered]

Dude your lucky your friend is better looking for that matter.

[TheDreadfulHoroscope]

I hate gay bashing to an extreme but there's no way I could fit all my opinions into this thread :angry: ......

[Tattered]

Y'what?

[memnoch]

I'm not a fan of gays. If they wouldn't bother me, or wouldn't parade around town in women's outfits, then i'd be fine. But since they do this once a year, i hate'em.

Luckily i've never been hit on by a gay, probably because i'm too manly for them. By the same token, women also ignore me, but that's another matter for another thread. ( :bawling: )

I don't like seeing gays in public, especially holding hands and kissing. It's disgusting. Before i get massively-flamed by the politically correct members of this board, i don't like seeing public affection whether it's a gay couple or straight. I don't even like displaying affection in public with a girlfriend. I'd hold her hand, that was about it....but when she'd want to kiss i felt uncomfortable. My view is that affection is private, therefore it should be kept at home where the couple can be intimate together, ALONE! I can usually put up with gays holding hands....i don't have to like it, so i just look the other way. But anything beyond is just too much.

I think i'd be a much happier man if gayness had stayed in closests everywhere. However prejudiced or politically incorrect that may be, it's my opinion and fuck you (in the vagina!).

[Tattered]

I don't like seeing gays in public, especially holding hands and kissing. It's disgusting.

Im with ya on that one. :sickface:

[ShredIsNotDead]

It is sad, but if I ever found out one of my friends was gay, I would kick his ass and not be his friend. I hate it when people think they are burning me by calling me a "homophobe" or a "homoist" or whatever. It is more of a compliment. I can safely say, I do not like homo's.

[andrewc]

to quote faust of emperor:

"It doesn't bother me if a man is homosexual but he must not go around and expect every man he sees, to be a homosexual."

one thing that confuses me about life, is how a woman can walk up to her mate and say "hey sweety, jeez i love your hair!" and her friend will generally say "thanks, you look great too!" whereas, if a guy walked up to his friend and said that, he would be unpleasantly retorted in 99% of cases. :confused:

i have had some bad experiences with gays, theres a few at school (they seem to be foreign mostly, strange coincidence, no racial abuse intended.)

A chinese dude in my class acts homo on purpose and gets away with it and he frustrates the hell out of me (he is homo though). He hits on my mate, who isnt even really that attractive, and makes him feel uncomfortable (he has some issues for sticking up for himself.)

A mexican dude in my music class is bi- and has the same problems except i want to deck him for bagging my girlfriend (who he has neither met, nor seen).

And a gay greek dude in year 9 is the worst of the lot.

Then there was a guy who tagged along with my group of mates (including S_H_S) and the rest of us swear and hit each other 95% of the time (all in good fun though) and he would just sit there trying to not be offended (so S_H_S gave him the boot).

sorry for all the personal experiences but yeah.
i dont believe right-wing gay bashing is right at all, but if they are going to stereotype themselves, they will have to pay the consequence, and it is up to them to stick up for themselves (please excuse the pun :p ) in the best possible way they can.

like when i was on the tram one time this trendy fag in a tracksuit, piping hot shirt and gelled hair starts bagging me for being a freak, i grabbed him and started death growlling loudly "dont fuck with me or ill hurt you real bad" but didnt hit him, thats an example of what i mean by standing up for my beliefs in the best possible way i can.

now i dont expect you to have read all that rubbish so ill get your attention with emoticons to focus on something i hate at all:

:kaioken: :kaioken: :kaioken: :angry: :angry: :angry: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS NEVER OK!!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :kaioken: :kaioken: :kaioken:

[Morbid+Roach]

May the Ancient Ones blow their loads on that evil little place called Halifax...

[andrewc]

lmfao. id be angry if it was my country, but since its not......baaahahahahaahhaaahahaahahaha.

[BeastOfCarrion]

Don't act like a flaming homo? Did you ever think that this is their way of expression? Your way of expression might be wearing a band shirt and docs , theirs would be acting like they do.
No, to act like a flaming metal head i would have to roam the streets claiming metal is the greatest thing and putting down anyone who thought otherwise, as well as dress excessivly metal, that is where the goths come in and we all know how much we hate them.
What I don't get is the parades. Yes they're proud to be gay. But we don't see bestiality parades, or straight parades, or alcoholic parades.
The funny thing is, most homophobes I have known, have turned out to be gay.
Or a pedophile parade, and there is nothing wrong with pedophiles, they are just created out of a chemical imbalance during the fetal stage that makes them desire young women, we should celebrate the pedophile because there is nothing wrong with it, and they can't help the way they are!
(oh, i dont mean to pick specifically on you with that either TK)

Thus it is my opinion that if we want to allow homosexuals to roam the streets then we should also allow pedophiles to do their thing, as in my eyes, they are both wrong, neither any worse than the other.

[TheDreadfulHoroscope]

No, to act like a flaming metal head i would have to roam the streets claiming metal is the greatest thing and putting down anyone who thought otherwise, as well as dress excessivly metal, that is where the goths come in and we all know how much we hate them.

Or a pedophile parade, and there is nothing wrong with pedophiles, they are just created out of a chemical imbalance during the fetal stage that makes them desire young women, we should celebrate the pedophile because there is nothing wrong with it, and they can't help the way they are!
(oh, i dont mean to pick specifically on you with that either TK)

Thus it is my opinion that if we want to allow homosexuals to roam the streets then we should also allow pedophiles to do their thing, as in my eyes, they are both wrong, neither any worse than the other.


Dude, there is a BIIIIGGGG distinction between gays and pedophiles. Children can't comprehend the idea of sex and pedophilia is SICK. It ruins the kids lives forever, it's always RAPE in the case of pedophiles. Some people have natural inclinations that aren't harmful at all (gays, straights) but there are things like sociopaths and pedophiles who actually harm other humans and need to be counciled and/or take pills to suppress your sex drive.

[BrokenCrimson]

A grown man is at the age of concent. He knows what's going to hurt him and what's not. Homosexual men in general do not prey on other men and try to hurt them.It does not hurt men if they come out except prejudice (indirect harm) and it hurts them only if they don't come out of the closet and try to make heterosexual relationships work while having hopeless crushes on numerous men.

Children are as stupid as fuck and don't know what's going on. Pedophiles are known for preying on children. It hurts children.

Also, homosexuals have hit on my man before. He tells them he's flattered but not interested, and goes on like nothing happened. I think that's a pretty reasonable way to go around it, no one gets hurt...

[BeastOfCarrion]

Its still my opinion, they are both wrong.
and who is to say that a 14 year old cant decide what they want?
but thats enough on pedophiles.

[cxmachine]

Also, homosexuals have hit on my man before. He tells them he's flattered but not interested, and goes on like nothing happened. I think that's a pretty reasonable way to go around it, no one gets hurt...

again this is probably the best way to be, and he deserves admiration for that. i will admit i immediately get uncomfortable after words though i will say the same thing. i go back to don't throw your gayness in my face. and i don't really mean that the same way transient did to a point. if you are more effeminate or your style is more colourful fine. just dont parade it in my face, crossdress for the sake of attention. thats the best way to put it. if it's "you" thats fine, but don't go out of your way on a daily basis for attention, thats milking it.

either way kill the wiggers, thats a choice to be an inferior member of the species, nothing wrong with freeing up some extra resources for the rest of us

[far_beyond_sane]

The funny thing is, most homophobes I have known, have turned out to be gay.

The power of denial is awesome, and funny.

[BrokenCrimson]

It s kinda funny on how wiggers act. They try to be rebelious and anti social by bumping chests with train station wardens who tell them not to scateboard, and verbally sexually harass people including me from distance but not do it in my face, and try to start people and run (there was 3 of them and one dude they started, he was depressed so he got started easily and the wiggers ran away.) They told me that if you're not normal nobody will like you, but they're not normal. Normal people don't smell funny and don't drop out of school at the age of 13. I told them that people who don't like you because you're not normal are not worthy of associating with, but they just called me preachy and asked me if I was goth. Scum.

[Transient]

You call me prejudist when you hurl false insults? You talk like America is the most beautiful girl that everyone wants to fuck.
Hahaha, when were you in Halifax? Hmm...I've lived here all my life and have never saw 1 lobstershack in the city of Halifax in my life.You could see moutains as far as the eye could see? That's funny considering Nova Scotia is a FUCKING PENISULA YOU STUPID SHIT. :rolleyes:
i was there when i was about 10. regardless, the country sucked

[Transient]

It s kinda funny on how wiggers act. They try to be rebelious and anti social by bumping chests with train station wardens who tell them not to scateboard, and verbally sexually harass people including me from distance but not do it in my face, and try to start people and run (there was 3 of them and one dude they started, he was depressed so he got started easily and the wiggers ran away.) They told me that if you're not normal nobody will like you, but they're not normal. Normal people don't smell funny and don't drop out of school at the age of 13. I told them that people who don't like you because you're not normal are not worthy of associating with, but they just called me preachy and asked me if I was goth. Scum.
wiggers all deserve to be hung from the gallows. they have accepted a culture that is 100% immoral and worthless, and foreign. they are the absolute shit of the us and deserve swift and painful punishment

[cxmachine]

It s kinda funny on how wiggers act. They try to be rebelious and anti social by bumping chests with train station wardens who tell them not to scateboard, and verbally sexually harass people including me from distance but not do it in my face, and try to start people and run (there was 3 of them and one dude they started, he was depressed so he got started easily and the wiggers ran away.) They told me that if you're not normal nobody will like you, but they're not normal. Normal people don't smell funny and don't drop out of school at the age of 13. I told them that people who don't like you because you're not normal are not worthy of associating with, but they just called me preachy and asked me if I was goth. Scum.

lol the dreaded G word. you have my sympathy ( i went to a catholic school i could tell stories)

[BLS]

Man BLS shut up, your probably gay yourself.


I don't mind gay people, I mean I can respect people for who they are. Although unlike Trendkill I wouldn't really want a gay guy to hit on me.


They're just people...ha you fucking americans with your prejudice(sp?) fucking president...I pitty you.

your a dumbass and apparently dont have any idea what my views on homosexuality are.

oh and SARCASM OMG!!!!

BUH BYE!

[andrewc]

wiggers all deserve to be hung from the gallows. they have accepted a culture that is 100% immoral and worthless, and foreign. they are the absolute shit of the us and deserve swift and painful punishment

as do the ones in australia. unbelievably pathetic, all you gotta do is power-walk towards them, glaring and growling, and theyll run as if they heard seth putnam vomiting his gall bladder.

[BassBehemoth]

i was there when i was about 10. regardless, the country sucked



And how old are you now? 12? I've been to the states countless times, and not all of it's amazing beleive me. Anyway, get back on topic shitfuck.

[Trendkill_420]

"this land is your land, this land is my land, la la la."
shut up with the anti-country shit. Not all americans are idiots (only the percentage that voted for bush :D )


I see you're point beastofcarrion. But you've also got to understand that gay people have sex with consenting adults. Sure you're gonna get your rapists, child-molesters and all around fuckheads, but there's plenty of straight ones kickin' around too.

And if someone really wants to fuck a dog or a sheep. Go ahead, as long as the dog/sheep enjoys it. :p

Memnoch: I think the lack of public affection is what's slowly turning this into a cold world. Children should learn that affection is a great thing, not something to be hid. (I'm talking about hugging and light kissing, not dry humpin a bitch on your car, mind you)

[Credit to Dementia]

Firstly, to everybody: it's prejudiced. I wouldn't say anything, but BassBehemoth asked, and this is one of the most frequently misspelled words on the internet. Now, on to the points:

I'm with memnoch on the subject of affection. I've only ever done anything in public with a girlfriend when we were both drunk and nobody was around. Aside from that, it's best kept to yourself. Or videotaped. No middle ground. Though I don't really care if I see it.

That said, I don't have a problem with gays. I used to be of the 'I don't mind 'em so long as they don't hit on me,' but I don't even mind that anymore. It's not like I have a tattoo that says 'heterosexual' on my forehead to let them know I'm not interested, and it's not uncommon to take someone's interest in what you say as sexual interest. And it's flattering. I can't be bothered to get angry about a girl I'm not interested in being attracted to me, so I don't see the point in doing so over a guy I'm not interested in. I find I get along better with ones who are people first and gay second, but that goes for everyone. I don't even mind the parades any more than I do any other parade. But I really dislike parades to begin with.

Gay bashing, beating, stabbing, or whatever is just flat out wrong. Even if you really, really hate them and feel assaulted by their actions, how is what they do worse than hospitalizing somebody? Just get a set of scales capable of weighing concepts and put annoyance up against traction; you'll notice that traction weighs more.

wiggers all deserve to be hung from the gallows. they have accepted a culture that is 100% immoral and worthless, and foreign. they are the absolute shit of the us and deserve swift and painful punishment
How is it foreign if the majority of wiggers are American and it's a culture that was developed in America? And how is foreign wrong? Aren't you trying to adopt a foreign culture? The more I hear of your worldview the more arbitrary the standards seem, but I'm still interested in hearing more.

Nova Scotia's all right. There are better parts of Canada, though, such as Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia. Montreal and Vancouver are some of the coolest cities on the continent.

[G_urr_A]

I'm going to be a fool for 5 minutes.

What is a 'wigger'?

[Credit to Dementia]

I'm going to be a fool for 5 minutes.

What is a 'wigger'?
'White' + 'Nigger' = 'Wigger.' It's a word coined to describe white boys who dress and act as though they were black, most valid when applied to suburban kids far removed from genuine hip hop culture and the conditions which formed it.

[G_urr_A]

Ok, thanks a lot!

[Transient]

How is it foreign if the majority of wiggers are American and it's a culture that was developed in America? And how is foreign wrong? Aren't you trying to adopt a foreign culture? The more I hear of your worldview the more arbitrary the standards seem, but I'm still interested in hearing more.

.

i suppose it isn't truely foreign, but the people that developed it are black and live in the inner city. now compare that to my nice little city and its about as foriegn as another country. foreign is wrong when its something that, for the most part, has no desire for your support and is disrespectful to EVERYONE that partakes in it. wiggers are trouble making, drug abusing, violent and worthless to society on a large basis.

as for the debate over whether or not being a "wigger" is foreign or not, ive never heard your point of view on it before. regardless, i cant stand it and despise it nonetheless

as always-thanks for not typing nothing but insults and having a civilized discussion!

[Trendkill_420]

the pc term is wafrican wamericans.
wigger is racist!

[BrokenCrimson]

Let's see:
It is foreign in Australlia, as there are very few suburbs here that resemble ghettos and they are acting like there are gang wars on every day, but really, the most that happens is someone gets busted for smoking dope or they attack someone in a crowd of 15 people, in one case they attacker two of my acquaintances who were blind drunk and trying to protect a girl from them. The girl dumped someone and he wasn't happy. Foreign also doesn't mean that it came from a different country - it just means that it came from something else, like a ofreign object in someone's eye, yadda. Being a wigger in a high middle class suburb is kinda foreign.

[Credit to Dementia]

The problem is that it's harmful, not foreign. These people would be violent and stupid even if they followed their indigenous lower class culture. Since I usually end up living in a ghetto or near-ghetto, a lot of wiggers in my experience were in a milieu that formed their behavior naturally, rather than artificially through imitation of their favorite musicians, and it's no better for that.

[Hate Eternal]

i hate gay men, ass pirate motherfuckers, i like lesbians though, i hate wiggers too probably more so than fags

[Transient]

The problem is that it's harmful, not foreign. These people would be violent and stupid even if they followed their indigenous lower class culture. Since I usually end up living in a ghetto or near-ghetto, a lot of wiggers in my experience were in a milieu that formed their behavior naturally, rather than artificially through imitation of their favorite musicians, and it's no better for that.
yeah, true.

[andrewc]

i hate gay men, ass pirate motherfuckers, i like lesbians though

you're a stupid fucking cunt.

[Trendkill_420]

wigger:
dresses the way they should dress,
has the attitude,
the image,
etc.

metalhead:
dresses teh way they should dress
has the attitude,
the image,
ect.


The ones who realize what i'm gettin at, are intellects. The ones who attack me. I'll explain.

[memnoch]

Memnoch: I think the lack of public affection is what's slowly turning this into a cold world. Children should learn that affection is a great thing, not something to be hid. (I'm talking about hugging and light kissing, not dry humpin a bitch on your car, mind you)

I disagree. 50 years ago you didn't see couples cleaning each other's vocal chords with their tongues on the corner of 5th and Main, or grabbing each others asses non-stop in a shopping mall. Times have changed drastically to where almost anything is accepted in publid apart from intercourse itself (be it vaginal, anal or oral). I have the views of the "old" generation that believes intimacy should be kept private, because the only people able to understand that intimacy are those 2 in the couple.

So that's why i hate seeing ANYONE sucking on anyone elses tongue. But it's about 1000 times worse if it's 2 guys. And about 1000 times better if it's 2 girls. (only hot ones) ;)

[BLS]

Dont be a peeping tom and their wouldnt be any problems ;)

:p

[Trendkill_420]

I disagree. 50 years ago you didn't see couples cleaning each other's vocal chords with their tongues on the corner of 5th and Main, or grabbing each others asses non-stop in a shopping mall. Times have changed drastically to where almost anything is accepted in publid apart from intercourse itself (be it vaginal, anal or oral). I have the views of the "old" generation that believes intimacy should be kept private, because the only people able to understand that intimacy are those 2 in the couple.

So that's why i hate seeing ANYONE sucking on anyone elses tongue. But it's about 1000 times worse if it's 2 guys. And about 1000 times better if it's 2 girls. (only hot ones) ;)

50 years ago, it was illegal to show a leg in public.

[Credit to Dementia]

wigger:
dresses the way they should dress,
has the attitude,
the image,
etc.

metalhead:
dresses teh way they should dress
has the attitude,
the image,
ect.

The ones who realize what i'm gettin at, are intellects. The ones who attack me. I'll explain.
I was going to say something along the lines of this, which is why I left it 'musician' instead of 'rapper' above, but I think you're looking at it a little too superficially. Not too much, since metalheads can also be violent, gaybashing, flaming morons, and are often enough that I'm occasionally ashamed to be one, but people aren't criticizing wiggers so much for how they dress, and any critiques of their attitude have specifically to do with that attitude, not the fact that they have one. But you're a smart enough guy to know this. It would probably be more productive to compare with the particularly violent subsects, specifically, since it's come up, those that try to grab the culture this or that band sprouted from. I'm sure you can find up with perfect examples of those.

[Trendkill_420]

^^ :)
;)

[Transient]

wigger:
dresses the way they should dress,
has the attitude,
the image,
etc.

metalhead:
dresses teh way they should dress
has the attitude,
the image,
ect.


The ones who realize what i'm gettin at, are intellects. The ones who attack me. I'll explain.

thats a stupid point. my clothing isnt flamboyant and irritating to others, a band logo never hurt anyone. (nor would a simple eminem logo bother me). the clothing is always way too large and baby blue. a metalhead's attitude is almost guaranteed to be open and accepting, due to the fact that you have to have an open mind to like metal in the first place. as far as i know, theres very little "image" involved with metalheads. they are acting and behaving in accordance with who they really are. wiggers, on the other hand, bend over backwards to appeal to the people who dont know anybetter and think that they are really from "da hood". amazing how these people grovel for street cred then dress in $200 sweatshirts.

[BLS]

Well said Tranny :beer:

[timedragon]

Or a pedophile parade, and there is nothing wrong with pedophiles, they are just created out of a chemical imbalance during the fetal stage that makes them desire young women, we should celebrate the pedophile because there is nothing wrong with it, and they can't help the way they are!
Thus it is my opinion that if we want to allow homosexuals to roam the streets then we should also allow pedophiles to do their thing, as in my eyes, they are both wrong, neither any worse than the other.
Though you said "enough on pedophiles"...
What exactly makes a pedophile? Im 18 and my last girlfriend was 15. I dont think theres anything wrong with that. My sister still called me a "chester". So the girl im talking to right now is actually 14. And I have kissed a girl, last year, who was ...12. so, uh, what the fuck. but i was drunk when i kissed that one girl, if that even justifies anything really. I was totally aware though and found her to be hot. Id better stop now :o

[Trendkill_420]

thats a stupid point. my clothing isnt flamboyant and irritating to others, a band logo never hurt anyone. (nor would a simple eminem logo bother me). the clothing is always way too large and baby blue. a metalhead's attitude is almost guaranteed to be open and accepting, due to the fact that you have to have an open mind to like metal in the first place. as far as i know, theres very little "image" involved with metalheads. they are acting and behaving in accordance with who they really are. wiggers, on the other hand, bend over backwards to appeal to the people who dont know anybetter and think that they are really from "da hood". amazing how these people grovel for street cred then dress in $200 sweatshirts.

You're clothin may be irritating to others. Some band logo's may offend others. (just look at a cannibal corpse t-shirt). You have to have an open mind to listen to metal? that's the funniest thing i've heard in a long time. There's an image involved with metal. If you don't follow this image, then i'd say you're an idividual. And some of these wiggers, dress accordingly to the style of music they prefer. punks dress accordingly to a punk trend. It just happens that most punk bands are white. See what I'm gettin at?
If you don't follow a stupid trend (wigger, metalhead, etc.) Then take pride in being an intelligent individual who has the balls to be him/herself.

[BLS]

Whats the Metalhead image?

Long Hair? Well only like 5 people on this site have long hair, and nowdays their plenty of metalbands that have members with short hair.

Black metal is the only image oriented genre of metal. Unless im missing something :confused:

[Transient]

You're clothin may be irritating to others. Some band logo's may offend others. (just look at a cannibal corpse t-shirt). You have to have an open mind to listen to metal? that's the funniest thing i've heard in a long time. There's an image involved with metal. If you don't follow this image, then i'd say you're an idividual. And some of these wiggers, dress accordingly to the style of music they prefer. punks dress accordingly to a punk trend. It just happens that most punk bands are white. See what I'm gettin at?
If you don't follow a stupid trend (wigger, metalhead, etc.) Then take pride in being an intelligent individual who has the balls to be him/herself.
you would never know that i listen to metal by looking at me. short hair, well dressed, clean. that kind of thing

[Trendkill_420]

Whats the Metalhead image?

Long Hair? Well only like 5 people on this site have long hair, and nowdays their plenty of metalbands that have members with short hair.

Black metal is the only image oriented genre of metal. Unless im missing something :confused:


There's plenty of images for metal. and there are also people who don't give a fuck about image. Fortunately many on this site prefer to be individuals.

[Transient]

agreed

[Trendkill_420]

:)

[andrewc]

Though you said "enough on pedophiles"...
What exactly makes a pedophile? Im 18 and my last girlfriend was 15. I dont think theres anything wrong with that. My sister still called me a "chester". So the girl im talking to right now is actually 14. And I have kissed a girl, last year, who was ...12. so, uh, what the fuck. but i was drunk when i kissed that one girl, if that even justifies anything really. I was totally aware though and found her to be hot. Id better stop now :o

tsk tsk, nawdy boi she will smack your bottom. :D meh, my last girl was 12 and i was 15, it doesnt really bug me when its 3 years difference. something that does bug me is when its a difference of 20+ years. eg, look at rupert murdoch, he is 70+ and his latest wife is 31 i think. its legal, but go back a few years, he would be a champion pedophile, she would be two and he'd be 40+ which is absolutely fucking dirty.

anyway as for image, my traditional dress is metal shirts and faded jeans. i do have a spike band but i never wear it. this is just because i like the way it looks. neither do i have long hair, and the "just cos you dont have long hair doesnt make you non-metal" comment is a valid one, look at the majority of grindcore bands, they tend to be skinheads.

[BrokenCrimson]

K, image wise, there will always be people who are smart and people who go over the top. Band shirts, jeans or workman pants or camo, and boots for me, trow in an occasional small spike band. My BF wears the same but prefers full gauntlets and sometimes a chain. Someone else I know I is a complete whore (nu metal bitch too) and puts layers and layers of spikes on himself (he also wore an Obituary shirt because he liked the art, he never even HEARD any Obituary, I lectured the fucker about it, but someone stopped me and said later "well, if someone stops him and asks him about Obituary he's fucked"). There is reason and there is stupid over the top bullshit. I consider trad BM bitches who wear full black coats in summer and pretend that it's Norway to be stupid and over the top, but reasonable BM fans are okay with me, like one guy in his 30's who's a liberal BM fan, wears spikes and has cool ass black dreads, but he dresses according to the weather. I actually spoke to 2 people who fit these parameters, one wore elf boots though. ELF BOOTS! :D

[memnoch]

Though you said "enough on pedophiles"...
What exactly makes a pedophile? Im 18 and my last girlfriend was 15. I dont think theres anything wrong with that. My sister still called me a "chester". So the girl im talking to right now is actually 14. And I have kissed a girl, last year, who was ...12. so, uh, what the fuck. but i was drunk when i kissed that one girl, if that even justifies anything really. I was totally aware though and found her to be hot. Id better stop now :o

I'm surprised you had enough guts to post that. I'd consider that pedophilia (the 12 year old), as i also would the 14 year old. I'm not sure what the laws are in the US, but in Canada the consenting age for sex is 16.....so that basically means 16+ = no pedophiles.

[Transient]

i didnt comment on that, but yeah, thats wicked molestor of you. frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Trendkill_420]

, but in Canada the consenting age for sex is 16.....
.

actually it's 14.

But if you're over 18, it's still statutory rape.
You know what they say, "16 will get ya 20" :cool:

[timedragon]

i didnt comment on that, but yeah, thats wicked molestor of you. frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
shit, are you serious? ashamed? I dont know about that. Im still pretty young myself. Ok, Im 18, my birthday is in may. My last girlfriend was only 3 years apart from me. the newer girl is 4 years apart from me. but shes turning 15 in a few weeks... So its the same thing with that. The girl that was 12 was when i was 17 so it wasnt even illegal. I dont know what the big fuckin deal is. I just like younger girls. And i dont purposely pick them out of the crowd. it just seems as though they are always there, i guess, oppurtunities with them approach more often and im not sure why. Fuck, whatever.

[Credit to Dementia]

actually it's 14.

But if you're over 18, it's still statutory rape.
You know what they say, "16 will get ya 20" :cool:
Age of consent varies in the U.S. from state to state, as do most things. But, as with you, if you're over 18 it's still statutory rape. At certain points this becomes very arbitrary.

[powersofterror]

In Texas, it's 17.

EDIT: No one I know of dislikes my image. Long hair, cargo pants (belted around the waist), airwalks, and a goatee. People like to read my shirts as well because I always wear black, and those with writings on them. I just don't see a reason to "dress up" every day. On the occasion, I wear a tux for concerts. I like the way people ":eek:" to me; I always wear shaggy clothes, and when I wear something nice, it's a larger difference, so people like to see me.

[andrewc]

hell yeah. maybe i shouldnt ditch australia after all :cool:

its a little odd. the age of statutory rape is 16 but its only for guys, for girls they can go as young as 15. i have no idea why, but its cool. im 15, almost 16, and my girlfriend is 17. as i said, dunno why, but because im a male its ok for me to be this age and for us to have sex, is actually legal (if it was this time last year, we'd be stuffed).

im not complaining ;)

[Infinity]

I've nothing against gays. I'll passively discriminate though, eg. "Oh man, that's so gay" "Man your'e such a fucking faggot"

[BLS]

Who cares? Thats harmless and if gays wanna bitch about that then they can go hang out with those fatass women's right activist.

[BrokenCrimson]

Who cares? Thats harmless and if gays wanna bitch about that then they can go hang out with those fatass women's right activist.
Yeah, there is no harm done in that, a lot of gay and bi people actually say "man, this is SOO gay!" and call people faggot, using it the same way straight people do, BUT I didn't like your "fat women's rights activist" remark. That's the worst fucking stereotype ever, it's like calling all metalheads satanists.

[Transient]

everybody calls things gay

[Infinity]

everybody calls things gay


That was my point. Theres no harm in that.

[memnoch]

BUT I didn't like your "fat women's rights activist" remark. That's the worst fucking stereotype ever, it's like calling all metalheads satanists.

Haha, yeah....but stereotypes are all derived and born from some sort of truth somewhere.

[RUSSIANROULETTE]

Funny thread this is...

Here are my views of homosexuality...I'm not a homophobe, that word is bullshit. It makes it seem like you're afraid of faggots (phobe) when the fact is you just can't stomach the fuckin thought of two burly men swapping saliva **shivers**
I don't have a problem with lesbians because I can relate to the atraction they have to feminine beauty, not because I'm a hornball that likes to see women kiss...most of them bitches have mullets and beards anyways **shivers again**
As for gay guys, like I said, I can't stand it. If a gay guy were to look at me I would return the most unfriendliest look I can conjure (sp?). If he proceeds, then I'd resort to violence...I wouldn't just hit him but I'd get in his face...then hit him. However, I don't think I could just go around beating up fags for no reason. The way I see it, they get enough punishment when they take it in the ass.

And pedophilia...that's just sad. I mean, seriously, how desperate can you be?

[BLS]

ahaha loser.. you fear gay men ahaha

FEGGIT

[RUSSIANROULETTE]

ahaha loser.. you fear gay men ahaha

FEGGIT
Fear is not a factor :rolleyes:

[BLS]

Dont tell NBC that..

[deMANUfacture]

The coolest thing i seen was when my cousin who is gay bashed a group of about 5 lads for teasing him. It was in sydney and i have never laughed soo much in my life. He wears all pink clothes and flare jeans and red hair and shit. And these red neck pretty boys teased him in darling harbour and he bashed them all. It was great :D

[BrokenCrimson]

RusianRoulette man, that's bullshit. Hitting people for looking at you? Should I hit men I don't like if they look at me? What about those who wolf whistle, or grab ass? It's the same fucking thing, it's not like you have "I'm not gay" written your forehead. You know, you say that you're not a homophobe, but the way you make it look is like you are afraid of them. How is someone going to hurt you by looking at you?

[MetalThrashingMad]

Mmm, its still creepy, I would give a guy crap for looking at me funny.

[Credit to Dementia]

Here are my views of homosexuality...I'm not a homophobe, that word is bullshit. It makes it seem like you're afraid of faggots (phobe) when the fact is you just can't stomach the fuckin thought of two burly men swapping saliva **shivers**
....
As for gay guys, like I said, I can't stand it. If a gay guy were to look at me I would return the most unfriendliest look I can conjure (sp?). If he proceeds, then I'd resort to violence...I wouldn't just hit him but I'd get in his face...then hit him.
A reaction like that is a textbook reaction to a feeling of being threatened; i.e., of fear. Fear of what? I think you say it best yourself:

The way I see it, they get enough punishment when they take it in the ass.
You look at homosexuality as a form of violence, a form you wish to avoid, and yet you're not afraid of it? You say you can't stand it - and no worries, I believe you - but you definitely seem to see it as a kind of threat, and, from your reaction, a valid one; nobody feels a need to respond to a threat from an effectively unthreatening source. I would say this does the term 'homophobe' justice. It also puts the majority of homosexuality at the level of rape and effectively ignores the makeup of the male body, but I would say that primarily you've shown exactly why the term 'homophobe' was adopted, rather than 'anti-homo' or something similar.

In any case, there's little point in objecting to the standard terminology if you and everybody else know and accept what it means.

And the most effective ways to get rid of a guy who is interested in you and a girl who is interested you are identical. Though, if you get into fights with girls who give you unwanted looks you've at least got consistency going for you.

[metal=life]

I didn't read this whole thread but beating up a gay dude is wrong. Someone whos gay is obviously a very confused individual and probobly won't change their ways because the more they are "harassed" the "stronger" and more "pride" they get. Its kinda culty to me...This is not directed at hot lesbians because they should be gay for my viewing pleasure

[timedragon]

This is not directed at hot lesbians because they should be gay for my viewing pleasure
:beer: :beer: :beer:

[Trendkill_420]

A reaction like that is a textbook reaction to a feeling of being threatened; i.e., of fear. Fear of what? I think you say it best yourself:


You look at homosexuality as a form of violence, a form you wish to avoid, and yet you're not afraid of it? You say you can't stand it - and no worries, I believe you - but you definitely seem to see it as a kind of threat, and, from your reaction, a valid one; nobody feels a need to respond to a threat from an effectively unthreatening source. I would say this does the term 'homophobe' justice. It also puts the majority of homosexuality at the level of rape and effectively ignores the makeup of the male body, but I would say that primarily you've shown exactly why the term 'homophobe' was adopted, rather than 'anti-homo' or something similar.

In any case, there's little point in objecting to the standard terminology if you and everybody else know and accept what it means.

And the most effective ways to get rid of a guy who is interested in you and a girl who is interested you are identical. Though, if you get into fights with girls who give you unwanted looks you've at least got consistency going for you.

well put.

[Samad]

There are a million things that make people uncomfortable besides a gay person hitting on them. If an unattractive girl hits on you, should you yell and bitch at her because she's bothering you? Same thing if you hit on a girl you like, she should not have the right to belittle you. Just like the wigger/metalhead comparison, it's what type of person you are, not your personal preferences.

[RUSSIANROULETTE]

A reaction like that is a textbook reaction to a feeling of being threatened; i.e., of fear. Fear of what? I think you say it best yourself:


You look at homosexuality as a form of violence, a form you wish to avoid, and yet you're not afraid of it? You say you can't stand it - and no worries, I believe you - but you definitely seem to see it as a kind of threat, and, from your reaction, a valid one; nobody feels a need to respond to a threat from an effectively unthreatening source. I would say this does the term 'homophobe' justice. It also puts the majority of homosexuality at the level of rape and effectively ignores the makeup of the male body, but I would say that primarily you've shown exactly why the term 'homophobe' was adopted, rather than 'anti-homo' or something similar.

In any case, there's little point in objecting to the standard terminology if you and everybody else know and accept what it means.

And the most effective ways to get rid of a guy who is interested in you and a girl who is interested you are identical. Though, if you get into fights with girls who give you unwanted looks you've at least got consistency going for you.
No man, nice try though.

A negative reaction to something you don't approve of does not mean it's fear. It's disgust. I don't want to see it, deal with it, or have anything to do with it, not because I'm afraid of it, I just don't agree with it. For example, say you're an atheist and a Jehova's witness was badgering you, stuffing his/her religion down your fuckin throat even after you gave a warning shot letting them know to back off...wouldn't that anger you? Does that mean you're afraid of the realigion? Does that make you afraid of the Jehova's witness?

As for your theory of me seeing homosexuality as a form of violence, that's absurd. I don't see homosexuality as a for of violence, I see it as a form of immorality.

And I did not say I'd hit a guy for looking at me. I clearly said I'd give him a look that would let him know I don't want him looking at me, and if he proceeds then I react. Think about it this way, this could happen whether a guy's trying to check me out or is just looking for a fight, all the same thing. With a girl that's looking at me, if she's not attractive to me, it is easy for me to ignore her and go on about my business.

And BrokenCrimson, If a guy comes up to you and grabs your ass or anything of the sort...why wouldn't you hit him? That's harrassment and ivasion of space, plenty of good reasons to resort to violence.

[BrokenCrimson]

Because if you hit everyone who grabs your ass, they hit back. Generally, grabass people don't have much respect, so, they wouldn't hesitate to return a punch. Not everyone hesitates before hurting women. Also, many fail to see the harm in verbal sexual harassment, and if I would punch them for it, I'd be very, very screwed. I hate verbal sexual harassment as much as ass grabbing, if not more.

[Transient]

why? hey baby, youre lookin hot!

whats wrong with that? i personally wouldnt say it, and never have, but i dont see whats so morally offensive about a cad remarking on your looks

[BrokenCrimson]

That's not sexual harassment, this is:

"Hey whore, do you shave, cause if you do, I'll give you a pump!"
"Fuck, is your boyfriend's dick as small as your tits?"
"Go where you belong, between my legs!"
"Your pants are tight, and I would really like to get into them"

Some women get overly femenazi about sexual harassment and get overexited when someone says something like "hey, you look sexier than normal today". Bah. They don't have enough happening in their life so they jump at everything.

[Trendkill_420]

ah the joys of sexual harassment :love:

[andrewc]

Some women get overly femenazi about sexual harassment and get overexited when someone says something like "hey, you look sexier than normal today". Bah. They don't have enough happening in their life so they jump at everything.

UNIVERSITY CHICKS IN A NUTSHELL :angry:
some bitch tried to charge my cousin with that shit, hes just turned 21 hes about 19 at the time. he was merely staring a chick in the eyes and next thing he knows hes getting threats and shit from this bitch. hes not a sexual harasser, hes not even a yobbo he is a friendly, quiet guy that wouldnt touch a fly, hes nearly 7 ft and wouldnt even get in a fight for himself (only for someone else) so he went and reasoned with her for ages before she finally relented. fuckin cow.

PS M=L=:D;)

[Cloaca]

was it at RMIT? they're all fucking nutjob bitches there.

[BrokenCrimson]

That's plain stupid. How about men start doing that to women when they stare them in the eye or call them handsome? There is a certain line between sexual harassment. Some people might feel uncomfortable when someone calls them hot, yeah, but they can just say "please don't talk to me like that, it makes me very uncomfortable" and it only becomes harassment if they don't seize, but when they yell from the other side of the street, especially stuff along the lines of what I mentioned, it gets bad. Wolf whistling and cat calls are also unpleasant, but I don't tend to wallow over them for long. Men - use your best judgement.

[andrewc]

was it at RMIT? they're all fucking nutjob bitches there.

nah dude, out at bendigo. thanks for the tip though, ill keep that one in mind <.<

[Credit to Dementia]

No man, nice try though.
I didn't think I was going to convince you, so I really don't care if I did.

A negative reaction to something you don't approve of does not mean it's fear. It's disgust. I don't want to see it, deal with it, or have anything to do with it, not because I'm afraid of it, I just don't agree with it. For example, say you're an atheist and a Jehova's witness was badgering you, stuffing his/her religion down your fuckin throat even after you gave a warning shot letting them know to back off...wouldn't that anger you? Does that mean you're afraid of the realigion? Does that make you afraid of the Jehova's witness?
A negative reaction is not the same as lashing out violently. I've lived in Palmyra, NY, where the Mormon's come every year because it's where Joe Smith. That makes Palmyra for the Mormons comparable to Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Jews and Christians, Gothenburg for melodic death fans, Norway for black metalheads, and Tampa for American death metalheads. So, beyond the normal allotment of random religious door-to-door proselytizers, I get a week or so once a year of complete inundation. And I don't care. I tell them I'm not interested and shut the door. Do you really punch Jehovah's Witnesses? That's really pathetic, if you do.

As for your theory of me seeing homosexuality as a form of violence, that's absurd. I don't see homosexuality as a for of violence, I see it as a form of immorality.
I'm simply going on your reaction. You're reacting as though it is a form of violence. You even say so:

Think about it this way, this could happen whether a guy's trying to check me out or is just looking for a fight, all the same thing.
You react, by your own admission, exactly as you would if he was trying to fight you. I don't exactly see where the myth of the unrelenting homo comes from, though, since most won't waste their time pursuing uninterested straight men. Why should they? Most will leave you alone if you just say 'Not interested.' Just like most girls. In my experience, the most unrelenting, least hint-taking are heterosexual men, and I guarantee you, a heterosexual man will not hit on you.

And BrokenCrimson, If a guy comes up to you and grabs your ass or anything of the sort...why wouldn't you hit him? That's harrassment and ivasion of space, plenty of good reasons to resort to violence.
True, but she shouldn't have used getting her ass grabbed as an analog to begin with. The question is whether she should hit a guy for trying to flirt with her, which should get a 'no' for an answer.

[Rapture]

Tampa for American death metalheads.

fuck yes. uhhh, thats all i got out of that rant, excuse me for not caring

[RUSSIANROULETTE]

I didn't think I was going to convince you, so I really don't care if I did.


A negative reaction is not the same as lashing out violently. I've lived in Palmyra, NY, where the Mormon's come every year because it's where Joe Smith. That makes Palmyra for the Mormons comparable to Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Jews and Christians, Gothenburg for melodic death fans, Norway for black metalheads, and Tampa for American death metalheads. So, beyond the normal allotment of random religious door-to-door proselytizers, I get a week or so once a year of complete inundation. And I don't care. I tell them I'm not interested and shut the door. Do you really punch Jehovah's Witnesses? That's really pathetic, if you do.


I'm simply going on your reaction. You're reacting as though it is a form of violence. You even say so:


You react, by your own admission, exactly as you would if he was trying to fight you. I don't exactly see where the myth of the unrelenting homo comes from, though, since most won't waste their time pursuing uninterested straight men. Why should they? Most will leave you alone if you just say 'Not interested.' Just like most girls. In my experience, the most unrelenting, least hint-taking are heterosexual men, and I guarantee you, a heterosexual man will not hit on you.


True, but she shouldn't have used getting her ass grabbed as an analog to begin with. The question is whether she should hit a guy for trying to flirt with her, which should get a 'no' for an answer.
Here's the problem man, you're taking everything I say out of context. Like the thing I said about the Jehova's Witness, that was an "put yourself in this position" statement. For all I know you could be a Jehova's Witness yourself. I said that to get you to put yourself in a situation that would disgust you so you can see where I'm coming from.

And again, I don't think of homosexuality as a form of violence, that's senseless. I have my morals and I find it replulsive. As for "lashing out violently", at no time did I lash out. Saying that I'd hit someone who stared at me for too long is not lashing out. It's the typical "guy" thing to do the way I see it. Everyone I know, matter of fact guy or girl, would not stand to have someone staring them down for no fucking reason, and like normal human beings, they would react.

And yes, in my point of view if a guy is staring at me intensley, he's looking for a fight, and I'd be glad to give it to him. Also, I said these things as examples, I'm not saying that it's ever happened to me or that I've seen it happen to anyone else. My statement was based on a worst case senerio.

Broken Crimson, it's obvious if you hit someone they're sure to return the favor. In my opinion, a man who hits a woman is not a man, and I've seen that happen numerous times but in the end, they learn their lesson. Think about it, a guy grabs a girl's ass, the girl breaks his nose, he gives her a black eye, the guy's friends will laugh at hit because he got a bloody nose from a girl, the girl's guy friends will beat the shit out of the guy for hitting her back, the girl's eye will only be black for a couple of weeks, the guy's reputation and ego are shattered forever....it's all good ;)

[Kuroi Hoshi]

personally i have no problems with gay ppl... i have gay friends and they are very respectfull. Just because some is gay does not mean he's out to fuck you and every other same-sex specimen that he or she sees. I am very clear about this, you can be and do whatever you want, as long as it doesnt affect me...

[Credit to Dementia]

Here's the problem man, you're taking everything I say out of context.
Well, I can't say I didn't see that coming. But I didn't take anything out of context. I am an atheist. I spoke about myself in the same situation, with the Jehovah's Witness trying to shove his religion down my throat (I replaced him with a Mormon, but if you think a Mormon's any less annoying you've never had 20 Mormons come by your house in one day while you were hung over, eager as a kid on his 21st birthday in Beers of the World to tell you about Joseph Smith and how Jesus came her in the Book of Mormon), and it's never really bothered me. I don't know how much more in that situation I could get. Even if I did go nuts, it would be with the imposition and not the religion. An untimely UPS man would get the same reaction. That's not real anger.

Until you stop equating somebody who wants to sleep with you with somebody who wants to beat the shit out of you it isn't hard to say you see homosexuality as some kind of threat. I don't care to what extreme you push it, those two impulses are rarely the same.

[Chris Rezendes]

I'll explain to you my thoughts. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration for the most part. Basically, it's like retardation or skin color, it is something you are born with and can't control much. Recent scientific evidence supports what gay people were saying for years- they are born with it, they can't help it. So on the topic of homosexuality, I kind of feel bad, really. I feel bad for any man who has to go through life fucking other men because biology fucked up and that's all he finds attractive.

Now, on the other, hand, talking like a shemale is not genetic. Neither is wearing excessively flamboyant clothes and accessories. You don't need to rub it in my face all day long that you are gay, I really don't care. If you notice, a lot of gay guys are pretty normal guys who like football and work out at the gym or go hunting or join the military or do other stereotypical manly activities. Then there are the kind that are so effeminate (which has nothing to do with biology) and eccentric, limpwristed, shopping obsessed, gossip obsessed, losers that are basically nothing more than Joan Rivers with a penis. I find them extremely annoying because they are not born that way, they chose to be that way, and they chose to irritate the hell out me.

I also don't really mind much being hit on by gay guys, because my bod is so fantastic it would be a crime for me to not let the whole world ogle me. Seriously, though, I've been hit on by gay men a couple of times. When I was in high school, we were paired off in tables, and I was a freshman paired off with a sophomore who was kind of a closet gay, yet who didn't mind making advances to me. The teacher in that class didn't mind making advances to me either, but she was a woman. I'm not sure what was so hot about my 14 year old awkward self, but apparently some people were buying what I wasn't selling. Also, when I was 17, my cousins had this gay friend and for some reason we were all bored and decided to hang out at a laundromat. He flirted with me a lot. While I was there, I flirted a lot with some of the girls who came in. So we were both just doing what came naturally.

So basically, being gay is nothing to either be proud or ashamed of. I don't wear patches on my shirt showing off I'm a pussy eating demon with vanilla flavoured semen, so don't wear patches showing me you are a scrotum licking fairy who likes his partners hairy. That's all I'm saying.

[RUSSIANROULETTE]

Well, I can't say I didn't see that coming. But I didn't take anything out of context. I am an atheist. I spoke about myself in the same situation, with the Jehovah's Witness trying to shove his religion down my throat (I replaced him with a Mormon, but if you think a Mormon's any less annoying you've never had 20 Mormons come by your house in one day while you were hung over, eager as a kid on his 21st birthday in Beers of the World to tell you about Joseph Smith and how Jesus came her in the Book of Mormon), and it's never really bothered me. I don't know how much more in that situation I could get. Even if I did go nuts, it would be with the imposition and not the religion. An untimely UPS man would get the same reaction. That's not real anger.
Obviously, you and I have completely different levels of tolerance
Until you stop equating somebody who wants to sleep with you with somebody who wants to beat the shit out of you it isn't hard to say you see homosexuality as some kind of threat. I don't care to what extreme you push it, those two impulses are rarely the same.
I don't care if a guy wants to fuck or fight, if he's staring at me like he has a problem it's a done deal, regardless.

[Transient]

I'll explain to you my thoughts. Homosexuality is a genetic aberration for the most part. Basically, it's like retardation or skin color, it is something you are born with and can't control much. Recent scientific evidence supports what gay people were saying for years- they are born with it, they can't help it. So on the topic of homosexuality, I kind of feel bad, really. I feel bad for any man who has to go through life fucking other men because biology fucked up and that's all he finds attractive.

Now, on the other, hand, talking like a shemale is not genetic. Neither is wearing excessively flamboyant clothes and accessories. You don't need to rub it in my face all day long that you are gay, I really don't care. If you notice, a lot of gay guys are pretty normal guys who like football and work out at the gym or go hunting or join the military or do other stereotypical manly activities. Then there are the kind that are so effeminate (which has nothing to do with biology) and eccentric, limpwristed, shopping obsessed, gossip obsessed, losers that are basically nothing more than Joan Rivers with a penis. I find them extremely annoying because they are not born that way, they chose to be that way, and they chose to irritate the hell out me.

I also don't really mind much being hit on by gay guys, because my bod is so fantastic it would be a crime for me to not let the whole world ogle me. Seriously, though, I've been hit on by gay men a couple of times. When I was in high school, we were paired off in tables, and I was a freshman paired off with a sophomore who was kind of a closet gay, yet who didn't mind making advances to me. The teacher in that class didn't mind making advances to me either, but she was a woman. I'm not sure what was so hot about my 14 year old awkward self, but apparently some people were buying what I wasn't selling. Also, when I was 17, my cousins had this gay friend and for some reason we were all bored and decided to hang out at a laundromat. He flirted with me a lot. While I was there, I flirted a lot with some of the girls who came in. So we were both just doing what came naturally.

So basically, being gay is nothing to either be proud or ashamed of. I don't wear patches on my shirt showing off I'm a pussy eating demon with vanilla flavoured semen, so don't wear patches showing me you are a scrotum licking fairy who likes his partners hairy. That's all I'm saying.


holy shit perfectly said

[Trendkill_420]

chris i agree 98%

Some people have more estrogen though, which would cause them to act more feminine.
Same with some females having more testosterone which would cause the opposite.
there's my 2%
:)

[johnmansley]

I don't wear patches on my shirt showing off I'm a pussy eating demon with vanilla flavoured semen, so don't wear patches showing me you are a scrotum licking fairy who likes his partners hairy. That's all I'm saying.

Hahaha!

[Credit to Dementia]

Some people have more estrogen though, which would cause them to act more feminine.
Same with some females having more testosterone which would cause the opposite.
:)
Right. But that should only effect things that are naturally effete, not culturally.

So basically, being gay is nothing to either be proud or ashamed of. I don't wear patches on my shirt showing off I'm a pussy eating demon with vanilla flavoured semen, so don't wear patches showing me you are a scrotum licking fairy who likes his partners hairy. That's all I'm saying.
I knew a girl who got fed up with all the gay pride things on the doors in her dorm (this is at the Westminster Choir College, whose male population is predominately gay. No, I didn't go there), that she made a posted a few posters, with illustrations, about how she was straight and loved the cock. Unsurprisingly, this did not last long. Fortunately I was there at the time. Unfortunately I don't own a camera and didn't take pictures.

Obviously, you and I have completely different levels of tolerance
Right.

[metal=life]

Fuck that, they arn't born with it. They're minds are warped somewhere in life. I don't think that when they are 5 years old they're looking at other 5 year olds penises thinking "wow i'd like to suck that big hunk of meat". I agree it is a retardation thing and its developed later on in life. Theres no way there can be scientific proof of someone being gay from the start of life. Thats like a scientist judgeing my favorite color when I'm born. And I won't take a homos word for it if he says "I was gay from the day I was born". The day I popped out of my moms vagina is nowhere in my memory...

[Credit to Dementia]

I don't think that when they are 5 years old they're looking at other 5 year olds penises thinking "wow i'd like to suck that big hunk of meat".
You were eating pussy at 5?

[metal=life]

Yeah but thats cause I'm a pimp.

[Chris Rezendes]

Fuck that, they arn't born with it. They're minds are warped somewhere in life. I don't think that when they are 5 years old they're looking at other 5 year olds penises thinking "wow i'd like to suck that big hunk of meat". I agree it is a retardation thing and its developed later on in life. Theres no way there can be scientific proof of someone being gay from the start of life. Thats like a scientist judgeing my favorite color when I'm born. And I won't take a homos word for it if he says "I was gay from the day I was born". The day I popped out of my moms vagina is nowhere in my memory...

You don't know nearly enough about science to make a judgement either way. If you do, prove me wrong, and show me scientifically why people aren't born gay or straight.

Your reasoning also doesn't make sense. 5 year olds aren't salivating after cock? 5 year olds are salivating after pussy, either. They are salivating after legos. Sexuality is instinctive and instinct is based on genetics. Your instincts don't kick in until after you hit puberty. That doesn't mean those instincts aren't there. Their minds aren't "warped". That whole theory grew out of ignorance and Judeo-Christian antipathy toward both homosexuality and science.

It's a genetic aberration and you have no real advanced knowledge or understanding of science to the point where you could say that it isn't true. What you are saying is almost identical to some bible eater telling me evolution is bullshit because the world was created 15,000 years ago and that dinosaur fossils were put on this earth to test our faith in the almighty Lord. Your own prejudices and ignorance made up your mind for you and you have no more evidence to back up your claim than do those aforementioned midwestern bible eaters.

[Trendkill_420]

Fuck that, they arn't born with it. They're minds are warped somewhere in life. ...

sounds like a theory based on personal experience.
Did you're priest touch you? that would also explain your hate for religion
:p


Fuck man, just talkin to you is turnin me gay.

..must...suck...cock......


maybe that's it. Product of environment. Surounded with gay folks = lust for cock.


Get off it, you fuckin highschool science major.

[Chris Rezendes]

I'd also like to make a point on how responsible gay male couples do society a huge favor.

Many of these people want to settle down like married couples and have children. Their inability to conceive leads them to adopt. This is helping out society in two HUGE ways. First off, they are saving some kid from a life of being bounced around between largely irresponsible foster parents and oppressive orphanages. Secondly, they are NOT creating new children, and by extension they are not contributing to the gross overpopulation of the world.

I'll say this right now. Couples who find innovative ways to create new children (despite their inability to do it naturally) make me sick to my fucking stomach. All they are doing is selfishly contributing to the disgustingly huge overpopulation problem that this world and this country faces. They are 100% selfish and are either ignorant of or apathetic toward the huge societal problem they are contributing to. It's fucking disgusting. They should adopt. Any couple that can't naturally create children should adopt. Fuck, anybody who wants more than 2 children should adopt. Disgusting pieces of shit.

You'll notice that politicians refuse to acknowledge or address either overpopulation (and by extension the destruction of our remaining natural environment due to 'development') and pollution. Mark my fucking words if they are not addressed (and Bush doesn't engage in a nuclear war, which would obviously kill us first), they directly lead to the destruction of this planet. Not that those conservative Christian right wing nazis give a shit. After all, rapture is coming soon anyway. Assholes.

Also, my apologies for my tirade taking this thread slightly off topic.

[andrewc]

I'd also like to make a point on how responsible gay male couples do society a huge favor.

Many of these people want to settle down like married couples and have children. Their inability to conceive leads them to adopt. This is helping out society in two HUGE ways. First off, they are saving some kid from a life of being bounced around between largely irresponsible foster parents and oppressive orphanages. Secondly, they are NOT creating new children, and by extension they are not contributing to the gross overpopulation of the world.

the good points just keep coming out of you like some superhuman pencil sharpener that's been touched by satan.

[BrokenCrimson]

Let's see:
Overpopulation is actually encouraged by goverments. They are trying to solve the short term problems with long term solutions. Peter Costello, an aussie politician of some power, himself said "Have one for the husband, one for the wife, and one for the country" while the simple lack of people and the negative population growth could have been solved by encouraging legitimate immigration. I'm a legit immigrant from Russia, and it's really shitty starting a new life somewhere you don't have any support, you get 0 financial assistance until you've been here for 2 years. The new baby bonus of 3000 is prompting some teenagers to conceive, and teenage pregnancy does not equal beneficial.

There is other bullshit about contraceptives here too, condoms are widely available, and so is the pill, but emergency contraception such as the MAP are a bitch to get (30 AUD, no generics, they collect your details before telling you the price, so they keep your details even if you didn't buy the MAP. The MAP is not a chemical abortion,and can't be equated or compared to it). The abortion laws vary from state to state, but I know of someone who had cervical cancer and was pregnant and needed an abortion or else she would die and the baby would die too anyway, and it took her ages before she found a doctor willing. If you are under 18 there are no abortion laws that apply to you. Like, zilch. Also, some pharmacist somewhere knows me as Sandy Vales because I didn't want to give him my real details.

[metal=life]

You don't know nearly enough about science to make a judgement either way. If you do, prove me wrong, and show me scientifically why people aren't born gay or straight.

Your reasoning also doesn't make sense. 5 year olds aren't salivating after cock? 5 year olds are salivating after pussy, either. They are salivating after legos. Sexuality is instinctive and instinct is based on genetics. Your instincts don't kick in until after you hit puberty. That doesn't mean those instincts aren't there. Their minds aren't "warped". That whole theory grew out of ignorance and Judeo-Christian antipathy toward both homosexuality and science.

It's a genetic aberration and you have no real advanced knowledge or understanding of science to the point where you could say that it isn't true. What you are saying is almost identical to some bible eater telling me evolution is bullshit because the world was created 15,000 years ago and that dinosaur fossils were put on this earth to test our faith in the almighty Lord. Your own prejudices and ignorance made up your mind for you and you have no more evidence to back up your claim than do those aforementioned midwestern bible eaters.


I didn't say they were salivating for pussy. I was saying there can't be any way to make up someones mind by science. Show me proof there is or I stick to my original opinion....homosexuality-retardation. Cocks wern't ment to go in assholes. Think about the importance of living...Our goal in our short life is to reproduce so that our kids can grow up and do the same.

And I wasn't being prejudice. Prejudice would mean that I would say something like FUCK HOMOS THEY SHOULD DIE.

And when you say "It's a genetic aberration and you have no real advanced knowledge or understanding of science to the point where you could say that it isn't true"....well I'm not even gonna bother pointing out the hypocrisy.

[metal=life]

n00b

[h4x5k8]

check your pms

[metal=life]

sounds like a theory based on personal experience.
Did you're priest touch you? that would also explain your hate for religion
:p


Fuck man, just talkin to you is turnin me gay.

..must...suck...cock......


maybe that's it. Product of environment. Surounded with gay folks = lust for cock.


Get off it, you fuckin highschool science major.

That priest is not to be spoken of on an online message board. I will say this....a few days ago a bald guy touched me.

[metal=life]

check your pms

check yours

[h4x5k8]

check yours
clear some god damn mother fuckin piece of shit space in your god damn fucking inbox you lazy piece of cow terd messege having bastard ass child touching faggot. please. :)

[metal=life]

Well.......STAY ON TOPIC :smash: or I'll Smash your Face with a Hammer...'n stuff....

Yeah...One time this guy was making fun of a dude cause he was gay...and the teacher gave him a detention after school.

[h4x5k8]

Well.......STAY ON TOPIC :smash: or I'll Smash your Face with a Hammer...'n stuff....

Yeah...One time this guy was making fun of a dude cause he was gay...and the teacher gave him a detention after school.
you still havent done it and i was staying on topic in one way by calling you a faggot....so there....faggot

[metal=life]

i'm only a fag cause you're my bitch.


Its posts like these that get good threads closed.

[Transient]

metal = life i wish youd leave like you said you would. you bring nothing to the table

[Trendkill_420]

Good points chris.



This may add fuel to this highly burning fire

http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html
http://www.firststone.org/articles/topics/homosexuality/life_determined_before_birth-by_alan_medinger.htm

[brainsforbreakfast]

I think, as with most things, homosexuality is a combination of nature AND nurture.

Every person has genes for just about every trait, but that doesnt mean that trait will show up in that person. With the exception of skin/hair/eye colour etc. most genetic traits must be nurtured before they show.
Just having the genes that makes you a "powerfull swimmer" will not make you one if there is no swimming pool around and you never learned to swim!

I think it can be both an aquired taste and biology.

[Chris Rezendes]

I didn't say they were salivating for pussy. I was saying there can't be any way to make up someones mind by science. Show me proof there is or I stick to my original opinion....homosexuality-retardation. Cocks wern't ment to go in assholes. Think about the importance of living...Our goal in our short life is to reproduce so that our kids can grow up and do the same.

And I wasn't being prejudice. Prejudice would mean that I would say something like FUCK HOMOS THEY SHOULD DIE.

If your original point was homosexuality = retardation, you've only helped to prove my point. Again, your understanding of science and biology aren't advanced enough for you to even understand this concept.

Basically, when you wrote what you wrote, it was the equivalent of somebody coming up to me and saying "dude, you are wrong, crocodiles and birds aren't related in any shape or form because they look different and I have no visible evidence to show me that they are."

Now, let me try to explain this in a way you might be able to understand. You said "Cocks wern't ment to go in assholes. Think about the importance of living...Our goal in our short life is to reproduce so that our kids can grow up and do the same." Your statement has absolutely no relevance to your argument. To the contrary, it supports mine. The FACT of the matter is that we don't learn how to reproduce. Our parents don't show us. Who showed you how to reproduce? I don't recall my mother or father ever guiding my penis into a vagina. Do you understand the reason behind this? It's instinctual. Instincts are borne from genetics. That is a scientific FACT. If sexuality is instinctual, then why is it so hard for you to understand that sexual abberations are also instinctual and, by extension, genetic? It makes perfect logical sense, and more importantly, is supported by scientific evidence.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll clarify myself and say that homosexuality isn't strictly genetic. Not all homosexuals share the genetics that cause them to be this way. Some of them are, in fact, homosexual as a result of their environments. By that same token, there are plenty of closet genetic homosexuals who lead heterosexual lives as a result of their environments and the fact that male homosexuality results in major restrictions of their own freedom.

Basically, this all comes down to genetics vs. the Bible, or more to the point, the great war between science and religion. It's pretty obvious which side of the war you have been greatly influenced by, whether or not you yourself are religious. That's why I said you were prejudiced, which you naturally took to mean I said you were a gay basher.

You also aren't completely aware of the definition of the word "prejudice" and therefore are oblivious to the context in which I used it. Prejudice basically means the same thing as the word "bias". It means you are already partial to a preconceived notion that causes you to refuse objectively considering the facts or evidence that doesn't support your opinion.

Again, if I am mistaken and you DO have an advanced understanding of biological sciences, then show me how I'm wrong. I'll be glad to show you evidence to support my argument. Show me legitimate evidence (i.e. the antithesis of everything you've shown me thus far) to support your argument.

And when you say "It's a genetic aberration and you have no real advanced knowledge or understanding of science to the point where you could say that it isn't true"....well I'm not even gonna bother pointing out the hypocrisy.

Also, please do show me the 'hypocrisy' in my statement, because it certainly is lost on me.

[Infinity]

Thats one bigass fucking post :D haha

[BassBehemoth]

metal = life i wish youd leave like you said you would. you bring nothing to the table



I agree. He should stop smoking so much weed and act reasonable.

[Trendkill_420]

weed's got nothing to do with it.

[BassBehemoth]

lol, it's funny because you said it. Maybe it is.. Weed can turn people into vary bitter people, especially when they're not high.


Anyway, he makes fun of people too much, especially people who shouldn't be made fun of.

[brainsforbreakfast]

lol, it's funny because you said it. Maybe it is.. Weed can turn people into vary bitter people, especially when they're not high.


Anyway, he makes fun of people too much, especially people who shouldn't be made fun of.

The only way people change by weed, is that some ppl are not reliable friends anymore. Thats about it. Some people might get psychosis and paranioa and stuff, but then you'd have to be smoking heavily (at least high all day, every day) for years and years.

[BassBehemoth]

Some people might get psychosis and paranioa and stuff, but then you'd have to be smoking heavily (at least high all day, every day) for years and years.


Hahaha, my point exactly..I've had several good friends that went to rehab(including several months of residence), and several more that need too.

[brainsforbreakfast]

Hahaha, my point exactly..I've had several good friends that went to rehab(including several months of residence), and several more that need too.

How many of your friends are smoking heavily, and how many just the 'occasional' joint?

[BassBehemoth]

95% of my old friends smoke all day, all the time. It's disgusting how many people I used to hang around with quit school to just do drugs.

[metal=life]

I agree. He should stop smoking so much weed and act reasonable.

Point out how I was being unreasonable.

"He should stop smoking so much weed "...yeah dude 0 grams of bud in the last 5-6 months...I need to slooow down. I think I need to smoke more if anything.

[metal=life]

Again, your understanding of science and biology aren't advanced enough for you to even understand this concept.






I'm sorry Dr. Chris. I wasn't aware that you had more education in science than I :rolleyes:


You rant off about your views which most people would agree with but they arn't proven theories. Mine arn't either but it is my opinion. The hypocrisy is that you insult my knowledge for science because I don't agree with your views. There is no proven fact why people act the way they do. It could be because of mental issues, trends or peer pressure. To better clarify it, you say my understanding of science and bio are not advanced enough...you do not know me too well. So show me proof that you are right and I am wrong...I bet you can't.

[brainsforbreakfast]

I don't think we want to know if our whole lives are geneticly pre-determined.

[BassBehemoth]

Point out how I was being unreasonable.

"He should stop smoking so much weed "...yeah dude 0 grams of bud in the last 5-6 months...I need to slooow down. I think I need to smoke more if anything.

I dunno, just completely un-necessary name calling...ha, I guess I shouldn't really talk...CUNT!

[Trendkill_420]

actually chris, i'd be interested in seeing your references on this subject. I've looked around and Everything i've read can't prove either theory.

[brainsforbreakfast]

actually chris, i'd be interested in seeing your references on this subject. I've looked around and Everything i've read can't prove either theory.

Like I said, should the scientists use their resources to 'explain' why people are what they are? Shouldn't society be more concered how to accept themselves and eachother?

[Trendkill_420]

Yes society should.

I'm just being curious. My views on homosexuality were already stated.

[brainsforbreakfast]

Yes society should.

I'm just being curious. My views on homosexuality were already stated.

Yes. I'm also curious... but personaly I hope its a question never answerd. It just takes away the 'mysteries' of life, in as who we are. Are we 100% defined by biology?
I'd rather not know. It takes away the fun ya'know.

[Chris Rezendes]

I'm sorry Dr. Chris. I wasn't aware that you had more education in science than I :rolleyes:

You rant off about your views which most people would agree with but they arn't proven theories. Mine arn't either but it is my opinion. The hypocrisy is that you insult my knowledge for science because I don't agree with your views. There is no proven fact why people act the way they do. It could be because of mental issues, trends or peer pressure. To better clarify it, you say my understanding of science and bio are not advanced enough...you do not know me too well. So show me proof that you are right and I am wrong...I bet you can't.

Of course I'm more knowledgable in the area of science than you are. I've been studying biology as long as I've been able to read, quite literally. I'm not really sure why you feel offended by that. I wouldn't be offended if we were talking about cars and somebody said "Chris, you are wrong, and you don't know much about carburetors." I'd simply concede that I am probably wrong, owing to the fact that I don't know shit about carburetors.

It's obvious to me you don't have an advanced understanding of the biological sciences or else you would have been able to make a legitimate point. A scientifically minded person would be able to bring a legitimate argument against mine, you have not. If you had, we'd have a scientific debate and then kindly agree to disagree when invariably neither of us would move on our points. You didn't do that, and in fact, showed a poor understanding for biology in your rebuttal to what I originally said and in all your ensuing replies. What reason would I possibly have to believe you DO have an advanced (or even intermediate) understanding of biology? You've shown biological ignorance and no biological knowledge.

The mature thing for you to do would be either to A. admit you don't have an advanced understanding of science, or B. prove that you are, in fact, knowledgable and gaining an apology as a result. Instead, you become offended and challenge me to prove that you don't have an advanced understanding of biology. I don't have to prove that, your posts have already done that for me.

I'll even give you incentive- if you show me a true, advanced understanding of biology, I will not only apologize to you, I will edit all my posts in this thread to read "I, Chris Rezendes, am an idiot. My stated points were all invalid, as they always are, and therefore I have edited them out. Instead, you are reading this, because I suck. Sorry for sucking so much dick, guys. :(" I'm confident I won't have to post that because I strongly doubt you have an advanced understanding of science.

When John Mansley has discussions here about physics, I don't interject myself and proclaim that he is wrong because it doesn't make sense to me. The reason for that is because I'm aware my understanding of physical sciences are not advanced. If I were to talk physics with John, and I said something that didn't make sense, I wouldn't get defensive if he told me I was wrong and pointed out my areas of ignorance.

Now, for the sake of accuracy, there really is no proof to support my argument (there's no proof to discredit it either). What I do have to support my argument is strong genetic evidence (still not proof), an advanced understanding of biology, and common sense. Any other person with advanced biological knowledge could make a legitimate argument against mine, and I'll admit that. The point is, nobody has made a legitimate argument against mine, because nobody has made a point using science.

[metal=life]

Ok, then judge my understanding for biology. I never said anything about me having more knowledge in Science or Bio than you. All I was saying was that being gay is like being retarded. I didn't mean it literally cause retardation is the act of being slow, unable to progress and having an IQ of below 70. What I ment and should have said was that homosexuality is definatly a mental condition with no name. That doesn't clarify it too much cause you could say that the reason anyone does anything is because of a mental reason. My opinion is that being gay is definatly fucked up because its not supposed to work that way. You can argue that statement all you want with biological proof but I'm sure someone with the same knowledge of science as you could argue against your points. That is because there is no proof of either opinion.

"show me a true, advanced understanding of bio"....I don't think anyone could do that in one post.

"You said "Cocks wern't ment to go in assholes. Think about the importance of living...Our goal in our short life is to reproduce so that our kids can grow up and do the same." Your statement has absolutely no relevance to your argument. To the contrary, it supports mine. The FACT of the matter is that we don't learn how to reproduce. Our parents don't show us. Who showed you how to reproduce? I don't recall my mother or father ever guiding my penis into a vagina. Do you understand the reason behind this? It's instinctual. Instincts are borne from genetics. That is a scientific FACT. If sexuality is instinctual, then why is it so hard for you to understand that sexual abberations are also instinctual and, by extension, genetic? It makes perfect logical sense, and more importantly, is supported by scientific evidence."

Of course its human instincts...And yeah I'm aware instincts are genetic. But I do not believe someone is born gay nor can a scientist determine if a child can grow up gay. Do you think its genetics when people fuck animals? Were they born to do that? Think about the purpose of sex. We do it by natural human instincts because there is reason to it. Theres no purpose in being gay...I do believe that reproducing is the number one goal in life and you can't accomplish it being gay. The only thing I personally think can be accomplish in being gay is selfishness. I say that because no life comes of it. You only please yourself. And I'm not saying gay dudes are selfish but think about when life started...the very first gay dude was probobly horny and got off on anyone who was close. Not to mate and have children but to just fuck because he was sick of using his hands. Take animals for example. My two male cats in Florida always hump each other. Did they love and care for each other and get protective when another cat came around? No they just humped each other because they wanted to feel good. To me, thats being selfish.

[andrewc]

rotfl @ metal's cats

[Credit to Dementia]

Take animals for example. My two male cats in Florida always hump each other. Did they love and care for each other and get protective when another cat came around? No they just humped each other because they wanted to feel good. To me, thats being selfish.
You fuck with a condom, right? Selfish bastard. It makes no sense to criticize some homosexuals for having sex for pleasure when so many heterosexuals do the same that pregnancies are usually accidental.

Also: in animals homosexuality is often a form of practice. There are games amongst zebras, for example, that end with one fucking the other.

Finally, your argument does not go against Chris's in any way. He's not claiming that homosexual sex serves a purpose the way heterosexual sex does; he's saying that it's something that happens and which they can't help. Love and caring don't come into his argument; instincts and genetic predetermination do. It's sloppy arguing to come against something with an entirely irrelevant argument.

[h4x5k8]

Uhh...yeah i fuck with a condom cause I don't want little metal=lifes running around. And yes its selfish cause I could give a shit less what the chick wants

EDIT-this is m=l

[h4x5k8]

damn it that isnt h8

[Trendkill_420]

. But I do not believe someone is born gay nor can a scientist determine if a child can grow up gay. .

I've read somewhere (can't remember for the life of me), that some scientists believe they've found Out the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual's brain patterns, and they could sway a child's sexual preference by hormones.
I think I read this in the newspaper, but i'll take a look around the net for this info.

[briyo2289]

I know i shouldnt even say tis cuz u guys are just gonna bash me and make fun of me but what ever, I am against gays caause Im a christan but people wo bash them are a hundred times worse tahtnbeig gay, on the other hand im not a big fan of gay parades and shows like queer eye but whatever.

[andrewc]

try using a little bit of grammar you fucking clown.

it doesnt bug me that much that your a christian, less so your against gays, hey its your opinion, but your poorly thought out grammar and ill spelling is shameful.

[Cloaca]

Hey andrew stop giving clowns a bad name!

[johnmansley]

I am against gays caause Im a christan

Hold on a minute, doesn't Christianity teach tolerance and to 'Love thy neighbour'?

My view is that homosexuals (and women for that matter) would have had a far easier last couple of thousand years if it were not for religious bigotry. You can't just say one minute that you're against them and then say that bashing them is 'a hundred times worse than being gay.' Both view points are carved from the same block of wood, ie, the plain disliking of homosexuals, so for somebody in your position to claim the moral high ground over people who openly bash them is quite simply ridiculous not to mention hypocritical.

[Mofoism]

i pity you for living in such a godforsaken shitty country. youre like a fat retard bastard son of scandinavia

you suck at everything. you yourself are predjudist for making fun of americans

youre a fucking idiot, and halifax is the shittiest nightmare of a town ive ever visited in my life. i went there once and it was like the entire place was full of people with downsyndrome. it was lobstershacks and mountains as far as the eye could see

you are culturally inferior.


you are a fucking goof buddy

[metal=life]

You can't just say one minute that you're against them and then say that bashing them is 'a hundred times worse than being gay.

Not correct. I don't like gay men and I don't like to bash them. I like to make fun of them when they do something very gay and funny on TV. But I don't bash them for it.

[briyo2289]

Hold on a minute, doesn't Christianity teach tolerance and to 'Love thy neighbour'?

My view is that homosexuals (and women for that matter) would have had a far easier last couple of thousand years if it were not for religious bigotry. You can't just say one minute that you're against them and then say that bashing them is 'a hundred times worse than being gay.' Both view points are carved from the same block of wood, ie, the plain disliking of homosexuals, so for somebody in your position to claim the moral high ground over people who openly bash them is quite simply ridiculous not to mention hypocritical.

wow. Thats the most ridiculous argument ive ever heard. Of course your suposed to love your neighbor and be tolerant, but that doesnt mean that if im walking down the steet and i see some guy robbing a store or raping a girl or whatever i should just let it go because i should be "tolerant" to their lifestyle. Not to say that those things are the same as being gay because their obviously not. but its still the same pricipal. Plus, using that same logic we should get rid of all laws becasue we dont wasnt to "offend" anyone with our hateful vies on their way of life.

yeah sorry about my grammar last time i was in a hurry

[Credit to Dementia]

wow. Thats the most ridiculous argument ive ever heard. Of course your suposed to love your neighbor and be tolerant, but that doesnt mean that if im walking down the steet and i see some guy robbing a store or raping a girl or whatever i should just let it go because i should be "tolerant" to their lifestyle. Not to say that those things are the same as being gay because their obviously not. but its still the same pricipal. Plus, using that same logic we should get rid of all laws becasue we dont wasnt to "offend" anyone with our hateful vies on their way of life.
That's a much more ridiculous argument than John's. You say you realize there's a major difference between consenting sex between two men and violent and hurtful acts, but then use the supposed 'link' between them to back up your argument? Stopping a rape is not analogous to tolerating a gay man; nor is allowing the latter analogous to allowing murder. The principle is not the same; one principle is stopping someone from causing harm the others (i.e. protection), the other is imposing your morality onto a non-harmful lifestyle (i.e. moralism). Unless, of course, you can prove how a homosexual act in which both participants are willfully involved (and able to make that decision, unlike a child, animal, corpse, etc) is somehow a harm perpetrated by one onto the other. Otherwise, the principle is only the 'same' for so long as it can justify your moralism. If I were like, for example, Penn Jillette in thinking that letting a fellow human being continue to be Christian is like just letting him stand in the street while and unnoticed dump truck bears down on him, I could use that analogy as my justification to launch into a bunch of reasons why you're misguided for being Christian; but I'd be just as misguided, and my analogy would be no more apt than the one you used.

John is right in that a long-standing tradition of homosexuality being a moral wrong on a par with others that have come up in this discussion leads directly to gay-bashing. You didn't really address that point at all.

[metal=life]

I think this thread should be shot to Hell cause it goes nowhere and no one's gonna prove a point.

[Trendkill_420]

I think his arguement's basis lies solely in faith.
The christian belief is to love thy neighboor. To tolerate. Tolerance is not acceptance. Christian beliefs are based primarily on procreation. Insert penis into vagina, thrust, repeat if necessary. Have kid. Repeat again.
I'm a christian, in the sense, of I believe in god. I think dude, is swaying towards catholicism or another set religion in his feelings towards homosexuality.
Credit to dementia. You are just trying to twist his words. He was using an example to prove his point (that you can love thy neighbour, but you may disagree with his/her choices) He was not comparing homosexuality to a rapist, He was using a "strong" reference, because it would strike his point easier.

[Credit to Dementia]

Credit to dementia. You are just trying to twist his words. He was using an example to prove his point (that you can love thy neighbour, but you may disagree with his/her choices) He was not comparing homosexuality to a rapist, He was using a "strong" reference, because it would strike his point easier.
He twisted John's words and made a nonsense point that I've heard often enough before to argue against it when I heard it. He was using a 'strong' reference to set up a logical fallacy. If he can't make his point without needing to compare homosexuality to something meaningfully harmful he's slipping into the kind of thinking in which the two acts are comparable. You can easily come up with a strong example of loving thy neighbor and disagreeing with his choices without having to compare it to a hostile act, and especially without going to the extreme of 'Should we get rid of laws so we don't offend criminals?' If you've got a problem with twisting words, show me how he came to that from what John said.

If he was trying to make the argument you claim for him, he failed, and basically showed how easy it is to slip, psychologically, from disagreeing with somebody's lifestyle to condemning it. Nobody, when you ask them why they're teetotalers, says 'Well, wouldn't you stop a rape if you saw it happening?' and gets nodding agreement, despite the fact that alcohol, through the years, has probably done a lot more damage than homosexuality ever could.

Obviously, you don't have to love anything somebody you love does, and neither does tolerance require approval. But he didn't say that. He went off on some ridiculous and poor analogy that ignored, and in some ways proved, the bulk of John's argument, rather than one that demonstrated his 'point' in a meaningful way. I tried to demonstrate how poorly it did so by using an equivalent argument from an a-, or anti-, theist. I think that a simile can be a very dangerous thing, so I point out where I see a problem with one.

[briyo2289]

metal life and trendll are both right. Even if I completely disaggre with you and vice versa we are not ever gonna change our personal ideals based on anothers persons argument, be it a fantastic or terrible one.

P.S. happy thanksgiving

[johnmansley]

yeah sorry about my grammar last time i was in a hurry

So what's your excuse this time? Now onto the nitty gritty.

wow. Thats the most ridiculous argument ive ever heard. Of course your suposed to love your neighbor and be tolerant, but that doesnt mean that if im walking down the steet and i see some guy robbing a store or raping a girl or whatever i should just let it go because i should be "tolerant" to their lifestyle. Not to say that those things are the same as being gay because their obviously not. but its still the same pricipal. Plus, using that same logic we should get rid of all laws becasue we dont wasnt to "offend" anyone with our hateful vies on their way of life.

Why is it the most ridiculous argument? In your post you did nothing to rebuke my argument or indeed state why it is ridiculous. Religion has supressed homosexuals and women for over two thousand years - fact. Are you supressing somebody when you stop a rape or murder? No, you are preventing an act of supression/brutality so your comparison is irrelevant and ill-thought through.

The crux of my argument was that you are being a hypocrite. In your post, you condemned people who openly bash homosexuals while at the same time stating that you can't abide them yourself. You have no moral high ground from which to condemn the bigots as you basically feel the same way.

As an example: it's the same as a rascist watching a football match on TV - all the while cursing the black players - then condemning people in the stands for publically taunting the very same black players. It reeks of hypocrisy and so do you.

[Trendkill 420]

He twisted John's words and made a nonsense point that I've heard often enough before to argue against it when I heard it. He was using a 'strong' reference to set up a logical fallacy. If he can't make his point without needing to compare homosexuality to something meaningfully harmful he's slipping into the kind of thinking in which the two acts are comparable. You can easily come up with a strong example of loving thy neighbor and disagreeing with his choices without having to compare it to a hostile act, and especially without going to the extreme of 'Should we get rid of laws so we don't offend criminals?' If you've got a problem with twisting words, show me how he came to that from what John said.

If he was trying to make the argument you claim for him, he failed, and basically showed how easy it is to slip, psychologically, from disagreeing with somebody's lifestyle to condemning it. Nobody, when you ask them why they're teetotalers, says 'Well, wouldn't you stop a rape if you saw it happening?' and gets nodding agreement, despite the fact that alcohol, through the years, has probably done a lot more damage than homosexuality ever could.

Obviously, you don't have to love anything somebody you love does, and neither does tolerance require approval. But he didn't say that. He went off on some ridiculous and poor analogy that ignored, and in some ways proved, the bulk of John's argument, rather than one that demonstrated his 'point' in a meaningful way. I tried to demonstrate how poorly it did so by using an equivalent argument from an a-, or anti-, theist. I think that a simile can be a very dangerous thing, so I point out where I see a problem with one.


Ok man, you've managed to use a lot of "big words" to back a bullshit arguement. I did not state that i came up with my facts from what john said. John is an intelligent human being. He backs his own thesis with facts. The human mind comes up with it's own examples randomly. Would you rather an example of him not liking a neighboor cuz he plays music too loud? no. like I said he used a strong reference. It strikes you more.
From what i've gathered, you are throwing alot of anger towards his arguement in the strick basis of him using his faith as example for his own arguement. You're a smart guy. But you're letting emotions fog your arguement.

[briyo2289]

The crux of my argument was that you are being a hypocrite. In your post, you condemned people who openly bash homosexuals while at the same time stating that you can't abide them yourself. You have no moral high ground from which to condemn the bigots as you basically feel the same way.


ok, First of all I didnt ever "condemn" homsexuals, i merely said that i am agianst homsexuality. There is a huge difference and twisting my word to make me sound like some neo nazi white trash bigot is a cheap trick. I said that I DISAGREE with homosexuality. not that "we should go lynch us some faggots" i understand that most gays cant help it and i dont bash them. i disagree with them and their lifestyle. bashing gay people who are genetically gay is like bashing someone born with a drug addiction. They cant help their addiction but by my morals their still wrong. Although that was probably "too extreme" of an example for you and now youll say that im comparing drug addicts to gays.
And yeah my opinions are faith based. last time i checked freedom of though and speech apply to both liberals and conservatives

[MetalThrashingMad]

My thoughts exactly. I have nothing against it, I just think its weird. I have my opinion, and it is not biggotry. Now someone close this fucking thing, its just a big pissing contest.

[Credit to Dementia]

Ok man, you've managed to use a lot of "big words" to back a bullshit arguement. I did not state that i came up with my facts from what john said.
Right here you lost me. I didn't say anything about you, I was talking about briyo, whose argument came from a twisting John's words. I didn't say you did anything in response to him.

The human mind comes up with it's own examples randomly. Would you rather an example of him not liking a neighboor cuz he plays music too loud? no. like I said he used a strong reference. It strikes you more.
It strikes you more, but also falsely. There is no analogy. There is a difference between using a strong reference and one that sheds false light on the subject. An act in which somebody does not impinge on somebody else's rights can't be compared to one in which somebody does. I understand what he was going for, the strong effect and all; I simply feel the argument is based on a fallacy: that there is a relationship, however weak, where none exists.

From what i've gathered, you are throwing alot of anger towards his arguement in the strick basis of him using his faith as example for his own arguement.
You gathered that, eh? I didn't talk about his faith (and I tried to make it a non-issue by showing why I'd disagree with a similar argument from somebody who shares my lack of faith), and he didn't use it as an example of his argument. He used arguments based on the defense of the innocent from something exterior (stopping a robbery, saving a rape victim, and justifiable laws), not on his faith. If he'd found another analogy, one that wasn't necessarily correct (alcoholism, drug abuse, standing obliviously in front of a truck), but was at least close to his situation, I wouldn't have minded much. If he was an atheist and said he had to do it out of love for his fellow man (and I'm an atheist who believes in love for my fellow man), just as he'd save a woman from being raped or stop a robbery, I'd be just as offended. If you want to make it an issue of religion it can be, but I don't really have an issue to work out with Christians. If I did, I could have done so by now. Just go back a few pages to see how and why.

I just want to add that, at this point, I have no problem whatsoever with briyo. He's clarified, and I don't mind if he uses addiction as an analogy, even if I disagree. The only problem I had was with his initial argument, which he's modified to one I can deal with.

[briyo2289]

I just want to add that, at this point, I have no problem whatsoever with briyo. He's clarified, and I don't mind if he uses addiction as an analogy, even if I disagree. The only problem I had was with his initial argument, which he's modified to one I can deal with.

thank you

[briyo2289]

I just want to add that, at this point, I have no problem whatsoever with briyo.

I dont have a problem with you either because your name is from sweting bullets :D
oh yea, and your logical and stuff

[johnmansley]

ok, First of all I didnt ever "condemn" homsexuals, i merely said that i am agianst homsexuality. There is a huge difference and twisting my word to make me sound like some neo nazi white trash bigot is a cheap trick. I said that I DISAGREE with homosexuality. not that "we should go lynch us some faggots" i understand that most gays cant help it and i dont bash them. i disagree with them and their lifestyle. bashing gay people who are genetically gay is like bashing someone born with a drug addiction. They cant help their addiction but by my morals their still wrong. Although that was probably "too extreme" of an example for you and now youll say that im comparing drug addicts to gays.
And yeah my opinions are faith based. last time i checked freedom of though and speech apply to both liberals and conservatives

Fair enough, condemn is a word that you didn't use, but being 'against' them isn't that much better is it? There's a whole world of difference between being against something and being indifferent to something. If you are against them, you are anti-gay and hence don't believe in the lifestyle that they choose to lead.

What I'm saying, which I feel that you still haven't addressed, is how can you condemn people who publically voice their hate at homosexuals when you are against homosexuality yourself? Both aspects contain anti-gay sentiments and are shorn from the same moral code that being gay is wrong.

I don't buy the drug addict analogy either. People who are drug addicts had a choice to take heroin for the first time. They could have said no just once right at the beginning to avert all the ensuing strife. Homosexuals don't have this choice because, as ChrisRezendes stated in his posts, they have a predetermined genetic predispostion to being gay. An addiction gene doesn't wash either, since a predisposition to addiction can only come into the equation once the drug has been ingested/injected.

Basically, you have done nothing to move me from my viewpoint that you have no moral right to condemn gay bashers.

[briyo2289]

What I'm saying, which I feel that you still haven't addressed, is how can you condemn people who publically voice their hate at homosexuals when you are against homosexuality yourself? Both aspects contain anti-gay sentiments and are shorn from the same moral code that being gay is wrong.

Do you really believe that people who beat up gay people or harass them or whatever do because its agianst their "moral code?" because i sure dont. The retards who publically bash gays or just about any one for that matter dont do it becuase it is aginst their personal belifs they do it because they're ignorant pricks who can only make their worthless and and unfulfilling lives seem a tad bit meaningful by hurting a small group of people.



I don't buy the drug addict analogy either. People who are drug addicts had a choice to take heroin for the first time. They could have said no just once right at the beginning to avert all the ensuing strife. Homosexuals don't have this choice because, as ChrisRezendes stated in his posts, they have a predetermined genetic predispostion to being gay. An addiction gene doesn't wash either, since a predisposition to addiction can only come into the equation once the drug has been ingested/injected.


not true. You can be born with a genetic addiction to drugs aka crack babies. They had no choice in what theyre mom did when she was pregnant but they still are addicted. And they are completly addicted. Some crack babies depending on how bad it is go through withdrawal when theyr like1 month old. After your addicted to a drug like that no matter if you or your mom got you addicted your mentally adicted for life. Although it is still his choice to actually go out and do the drug later on in life. Considering that his mom did crack he probably doesnt have the best surroundings growing up and cahnces are that someone like him is gonna do drugs agian when theyre older.

and plus if gay people were really worried about all the ensuring strife they could not act on their feelings. (Im not suggesting that this is how all gay people should sct im merely refuting your point)

on a side note to that: Pedofiles. They have a gentic pre-disposition to touching 8 year old boys. If a little boy agrees why stop them? or poligomy i have yet to hear a good reason from anyone who supports gay marriage (not that ive heard any of u say about mariiage speciffically but) if you suppoert gay marriag isnt it hypocritical to be agians poligomy or what if i wanna marry a talking bird who can get through the wedding ceremony.
Besides my moral beliefs i think openly allowing alternative lifeltyles like homosexuality opens a gargantuous can of worms.

[metal=life]

Goddamn, this thread gives me a bigger headache than schwag.

[johnmansley]

The retards who publically bash gays or just about any one for that matter dont do it becuase it is aginst their personal belifs they do it because they're ignorant pricks who can only make their worthless and and unfulfilling lives seem a tad bit meaningful by hurting a small group of people.

Sounds pretty much like it's against their personal beliefs to me, otherwise why would they attack them? Like I said, if they were indifferent to homosexuality, they wouldn't attack or abuse them would they? They'd just ignore them and get on with their own lives.

Although it is still his choice to actually go out and do the drug later on in life.

Exactly.

Considering that his mom did crack he probably doesnt have the best surroundings growing up and cahnces are that someone like him is gonna do drugs agian when theyre older.

This isn't a genetic problem, it is a decision made by the mother/father and although the child has no choice in who it's parents are, it still has a choice of whether to take drugs regardless of being born addicted or not.

and plus if gay people were really worried about all the ensuring strife they could not act on their feelings. (Im not suggesting that this is how all gay people should sct im merely refuting your point)

It's a different sort of strife. An addict's drug problems are self-inflicted whereas a gay person who is abused and bullied is being so out of somebody elses hatred for them.

on a side note to that: Pedofiles. They have a gentic pre-disposition to touching 8 year old boys. If a little boy agrees why stop them?

Because it's illegal, the last time I looked being gay was not illegal in Britain. Paedophilia is illegal due to the fact that children under the age of consent don't think like adults and they are easily susceptible to being coerced by adults. A child doesn't know that what the man (or woman) is doing is wrong as it doesn't know any different. At least at first.

or poligomy i have yet to hear a good reason from anyone who supports gay marriage (not that ive heard any of u say about mariiage speciffically but) if you suppoert gay marriag isnt it hypocritical to be agians poligomy

I don't know what you're trying to get at here. I don't see how the comparison between gay marriage and multiple marriages works. Again, polygamy is illegal for a good reason. If you love a person, why should your union not be recognised by law? Why should a homosexual couple not enjoy the same benefits of being married as a heterosexual couple (pension benefits, married couples allowance etc)?

or what if i wanna marry a talking bird who can get through the wedding ceremony.

I've read stories of men marrying horses and recently, a French women fell in love with, and subsequently married, an American who had been dead for 2 years. It seems that everybody is entitled to marriage besides gay people.

Besides my moral beliefs i think openly allowing alternative lifeltyles like homosexuality opens a gargantuous can of worms.

In what way? How can gay marriage disrupt society? Now I'm really interested.

[briyo2289]

Sounds pretty much like it's against their personal beliefs to me, otherwise why would they attack them?


An addict's drug problems are self-inflicted whereas a gay person who is abused and bullied is being so out of somebody elses hatred for them

thats my point. Although they might claim it is from their moral views that they beat gay people but its not. They might have at one time thought it was wrong but that thought grew into hatred. Thats why thaey bash gays not because they think its wrong but because but they hate them with no logical reason. not to be confused with a moral view of thinking it is wrong and at the same time loving your neighbor and not condemning him for it.


I don't know what you're trying to get at here. I don't see how the comparison between gay marriage and multiple marriages works. Again, polygamy is illegal for a good reason.

Maybe im not understanding what your saying correctly but if i am that seems a wee bit hypocritical. Basically what your saying, if i understand right, is that we shouldnt discriminate agaisnt gays becasue its different well so is poligomy. If adam can be in love with steve and its okay then i can be in love with kelly and amy and sharon. If your going to suppprt one altenative lifestyle you should support all of them, as i see it


I've read stories of men marrying horses and recently, a French women fell in love with, and subsequently married, an American who had been dead for 2 years. It seems that everybody is entitled to marriage besides gay people.

wow. thats messed up.

In what way? How can gay marriage disrupt society? Now I'm really interested.

it doesnt necesarily disrupt society. But it does foster a nation of freaks and weirdos who are taught the "my right is my right and your right is your right" which is a terrible philosophy because eventually people are goint to kep getting more and more extreme. Because in 35 years there are gonna start to be stuff like beastiality parades and disgusting stuff like that. It doenst sound probable but if you asked a poiitician in the 50's about gay mariiag theyd spit on you and laugh you out of the state

on a side note: any dude who marries a horse (and was not on LSD) should be immediately shot in the face with a shotgun.

[andrewc]

yeah, metal. 7 or 8 different quotes between mansley and bible boy in their posts, are giving me a throbber.

close this.

[Cloaca]

haha, at first I thought you were talking about your wang andrew.

I agree, close it.

[lamb_of_god]

Why was it started again?

[Trendkill 420]

Why would you close a thread in which two people are having a unheated debate? Their opinions may not be swayed, but at least they can share them.
Credit, my apologies, i made that post while inebriated. You know the saying "baffle 'em with your bullshit". :D
If a guy wants 3 wives let the poor prick. One's two much for me.

[andrewc]

haha, at first I thought you were talking about your wang andrew.

I agree, close it.

the "tit happens" thread did that ;)

[johnmansley]

Maybe im not understanding what your saying correctly but if i am that seems a wee bit hypocritical. Basically what your saying, if i understand right, is that we shouldnt discriminate agaisnt gays becasue its different well so is poligomy. If adam can be in love with steve and its okay then i can be in love with kelly and amy and sharon. If your going to suppprt one altenative lifestyle you should support all of them, as i see it.

Why? Just because I think gay people deserve the same rights as straight people doesn't mean that I have to endorse drug use or paedophilia. Polygamy is different yes, but it is illegal and in no time what so ever will it be legalised due to the myriad of problems it would introduce. I fail to see how legalising gay marriage will throw a problem up for society.


it doesnt necesarily disrupt society. But it does foster a nation of freaks and weirdos who are taught the "my right is my right and your right is your right" which is a terrible philosophy because eventually people are goint to kep getting more and more extreme. Because in 35 years there are gonna start to be stuff like beastiality parades and disgusting stuff like that. It doenst sound probable but if you asked a poiitician in the 50's about gay mariiag theyd spit on you and laugh you out of the state.

Foster a nation of freaks and weirdos? Homosexuals are not freaks or weirdos. They are every day people with normal lives who just happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. It's precisely this attitude that has kept the human race from advancing into a more civilized society. I don't agree with Manchester United supporters but that does not entitle me to label them as freaks just because they have different opinions to me.

After all this, you still have not convinced me that you have the right to condemn people who publically abuse gays.

[Trendkill 420]

I have no problem with gay marriages, but gay adoptions could fuck shit up too much.

[brainsforbreakfast]

I have no problem with gay marriages, but gay adoptions could fuck shit up too much.

That realy depends on the persons adopting. Being adopted by the wrong hetrosexual couple could fuck a child up. Why would having two mothers or two fathers fuck things up? That's the same as saying being brought up with only one parent would fuck things up, because there is lacking one?
There are a lot of single parent families here, and it doesn't make a difference.

The most important thing for a child is love and care. It doens't matter how many and what sex the parents are.

[johnmansley]

The most important thing for a child is love and care. It doens't matter how many and what sex the parents are.

Agreed.

[Credit to Dementia]

Credit, my apologies, i made that post while inebriated. You know the saying "baffle 'em with your bullshit". :D
No need, man. There's no harm in forcing me to defend or clarify things I've said, especially if I'm not stating them particularly well. Or in posting while drunk.

If a guy wants 3 wives let the poor prick. One's two much for me.
Good call. I'd probably be suicidal if I tried to live with more than one woman. One, on the other hand, keeps me sane. Or so I like to say; it's not like I suddenly become psychopathic when I'm single. My behavior just grows more erratic and stupid. Especially stupid.

[Trendkill 420]

lol, i know what you mean. They turn into that little angel on your shoulder.
I'm only married commonlaw.

[briyo2289]

Foster a nation of freaks and weirdos? Homosexuals are not freaks or weirdos. They are every day people with normal lives who just happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. It's precisely this attitude that has kept the human race from advancing into a more civilized society. I don't agree with Manchester United supporters but that does not entitle me to label them as freaks just because they have different opinions to me.


i never said they were i said that allowing alternatives you would let all sorts of other freaks like pedophiles think that they should start getting rights ro marry and what not.


After all this, you still have not convinced me that you have the right to condemn people who publically abuse gays

dont care any more.
were not gonna change our opinions.
im gonna quit posting this thread unless someone says something extremely unintelligible or really funny.

By the way im sure im just ignorant but what is the manchester united?

[andrewc]

dear nearest mod,

please close this.

kind regards,
andrew

[Chris Rezendes]

on a side note to that: Pedofiles. They have a gentic pre-disposition to touching 8 year old boys. If a little boy agrees why stop them? or poligomy i have yet to hear a good reason from anyone who supports gay marriage (not that ive heard any of u say about mariiage speciffically but) if you suppoert gay marriag isnt it hypocritical to be agians poligomy or what if i wanna marry a talking bird who can get through the wedding ceremony.
Besides my moral beliefs i think openly allowing alternative lifeltyles like homosexuality opens a gargantuous can of worms.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are very different topics. There is strong evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic. There is none to show that pedophilia is. Pedophiles are generally influenced by a poor or repressive environment. They are people who never fully mature mentally and as a result identify with children. They usually have problems sustaining or even having relationships with adult men or women. Also quite often, they themselves were sexually abused in some form as children. Most pedophiles were physical abused (if not sexually) and/or emotionally taunted or traumatized. Pedophilia is a learned behavior. It's a vicious cycle, much like physical abuse.

There is no legitimate comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality.

[Slabbefusk]

I consider both of them wrong, even if you cannot compare them.

[Trendkill 420]

from now on. In arguements to this degree. We now need some references to back our statements!
(well it would make it a bit more interesting)

[brainsforbreakfast]

This thread is getting out of hand. How many more pages before a mod closes it, and wich mod will?
Betting has now started.

[johnmansley]

dont care any more.
were not gonna change our opinions.

I'm not trying to change your opinion - you are perfectly entitled to it. It isn't your opinion on gays that I am arguing against. You youself have admitted that you are against gays and worry that if gay marriage is legallised that a society of freaks will be born yet you condemn people who publically verbally and physically abuse gays. It's obvious that you don't care but can you see the hypocrisy in this?


By the way im sure im just ignorant but what is the manchester united?

A disgusting football club.

To the people who want the thread closed: Why? There have been no slanging matches and the thread has stayed on topic. What's the problem? If you've had enough don't read it. This is the problem in society as well: just sweep it under the carpet, it'll just go away. If only society could sit down and discuss the issue as we have in this thread - maybe there'd be less morons going around and beating up people just because they are gay.

[Trendkill 420]

We've got an independent thinker here.
Room 101 for you.

[briyo2289]

yet you condemn people who publically verbally and physically abuse gays. It's obvious that you don't care but can you see the hypocrisy in this?

no i honestly dont. The way i see your argument, the only way to not be a hyupocrite is to either never say anyone is wrong and just let everyone live by their own rules, or to condemn evey single person you see doing sometihng that you disagree with. All bad things are not equal. im not a hypocrite for saying that a drug user is worse than a jay walker (two valid arguments as both are vicimless crimes yet still completely different.)


and i wish everyon would quit saying to close the thread. If youre sick of it then stop reading.

[johnmansley]

But surely if one condemns another for attacking something that oneself disagrees with there is at least a faint whiff of double standards in the air. The double standards do not apply to the violence or verbal abuse but to the thought processes behind them. These processes may or may not be rooted in morality but it boils down to one fact: the dislike of another person due to their sexuality.

[Cloaca]

Christians generally tend to be blind to hypocrisy, their fairytale beliefs get in the way of good reasoning.

[corroded]

Christians generally tend to be blind to hypocrisy, their fairytale beliefs get in the way of good reasoning.
thats the saddest part about any religion for that matter

[briyo2289]

But surely if one condemns another for attacking something that oneself disagrees with there is at least a faint whiff of double standards in the air. The double standards do not apply to the violence or verbal abuse but to the thought processes behind them. These processes may or may not be rooted in morality but it boils down to one fact: the dislike of another person due to their sexuality.

wrong: I don't dislike gay people. I think there lifestyle is wrong but i dont dislike them. Anyone who says that they dislike everyone who sins or does wrong or whatever is a hypocrite because no one is perfect and everyone is wrong at one tom or another. but to say that someons actions are wrong is completely different thatn saying that that the person is a bad person or that i dislike them.



Christians generally tend to be blind to hypocrisy, their fairytale beliefs get in the way of good reasoning.

you havent actually made an argument your just calling christians hypocrites. Id also like you to explain what you mean by "fairy tale beliefs" because despite what most people think there is actually a lot of scientific evidence for things in the bible. Not all of course.

[Cloaca]

If you really want me to start, this thread is gonna get way off hand. But i'll say this: the last time I had an argument with a christian on the validity of his religion, at the end all he could say was this:

no, nup, there is a god, no, god exists, just face it, na, na, na and so on.

[briyo2289]

If you really want me to start, this thread is gonna get way off hand. But i'll say this: the last time I had an argument with a christian on the validity of his religion, at the end all he could say was this:

no, nup, there is a god, no, god exists, just face it, na, na, na and so on.


well of course there are ignorant christians who dont listen and have no factual argumrnts but theres also a lot of atheists and evolutionists who ive disscussed with who end up doin tha same thing

"no my biology teacher said christians suck and that a monkey evolved into darwin and he was the fist human so it must be true because i didnt look any of it up to see if any of it was true and also once on the discovery channel they said that the big bang made the earth so that proves it."

please dont judge all christians by the ignorance of one person. juat as i dont judge all athesist or agnostics or whatever by the few stupid ones ive talked too.

[johnmansley]

wrong: I don't dislike gay people. I think there lifestyle is wrong but i dont dislike them. Anyone who says that they dislike everyone who sins or does wrong or whatever is a hypocrite because no one is perfect and everyone is wrong at one tom or another. but to say that someons actions are wrong is completely different thatn saying that that the person is a bad person or that i dislike them.

That is a fair point but why do you consider homosexuality to be wrong? You must dislike some aspect of homosexuality in order for you to state that it is wrong otherwise you would be indifferent towards it.

Oh and about religion, it is fundamentally flawed: science has disproved the vast, vast majority of it. However, the specifics of this are best suited in another thread.

[Cloaca]

well of course there are ignorant christians who dont listen and have no factual argumrnts but theres also a lot of atheists and evolutionists who ive disscussed with who end up doin tha same thing

"no my biology teacher said christians suck and that a monkey evolved into darwin and he was the fist human so it must be true because i didnt look any of it up to see if any of it was true and also once on the discovery channel they said that the big bang made the earth so that proves it."

please dont judge all christians by the ignorance of one person. juat as i dont judge all athesist or agnostics or whatever by the few stupid ones ive talked too.

Look, you bring up a decent point about the "some ignorant christians" thing, but I can think of at least four people I know off the top of my head that are like that.

but hey, lets just make this the end of this topic in this thread. Its supposed to be about gay bashings.

[Cloaca]

okay, fuck ever being in a band with you cunt (he asked), you sound like a redneck trucker piece of shit.

edit: Well, he's from central USA, I wasn't far off. :scatter:

[briyo2289]

okay, fuck ever being in a band with you cunt (he asked), you sound like a redneck trucker piece of shit.

edit: Well, he's from central USA, I wasn't far off. :scatter:

Me?

[Trendkill 420]

Oh and about religion, it is fundamentally flawed: science has disproved the vast, vast majority of it. However, the specifics of this are best suited in another thread.

hey why not. This is the controversial thread.
Science can prove alot of things. And there are a lot of things science cannot even fathom. Like you said "the majority" of it.
People say that "we" hide behind faith. I don't hide behind anything. I'm 99.9% sure there is a "god". A god being to some: energy, love, empathy, science, a being, nothingness, etc.
I have faith, call me ignorant if you want (john i know you won't, you are an intelligent, tolerable man), But if you do, you are also.

[Cloaca]

Me?
no, rob24. he's rather stupid.

[briyo2289]

no, rob24. he's rather stupid.

oh ok. just making sure becasue i also am from central USA .

[Chris Rezendes]

Id also like you to explain what you mean by "fairy tale beliefs" because despite what most people think there is actually a lot of scientific evidence for things in the bible. Not all of course.

Actually, there is very little scientific evidence to support the veracity of the bible. Contrarily, scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports that even as a religious person you should take everything you read from the bible with a grain of salt. Now, my mother is a very strongly religious person (she reads religious literature daily, she goes to church 2-3 times a week, and she has taught both seminary and Sunday school) and her outlook is that since the bible was written by humans capable of error, and not God himself, that the bible is not 100% accurate, especially because many things were different back then. For example, let's look at Noah's Ark. According to the bible, the whole world flooded during that period. There is no evidence to support that. It is possible, however, that since at the time no human being knew of the whole world, that a region could have been flooded. Now, since that would have been that person's "world", that makes far more logical sense.

It's impossible for the whole world to have been flooded for as long as it supposedly was, because we wouldn't have any surviving plants or animals. It's also impossible for Noah to have had two of every animal in the world on his Ark. There are over 2900 species of snakes and almost 4600 species of lizards on this planet today. Within the order Squamata alone, there are roughly 4650 species. Now, let me be illogical and somehow assume that all sea snakes would have miraculously survived the 40 day flood, since they are, after all, aquatic. That knocks about 60 snakes off the list, so we are down to 'only' 4590 species. So that would mean not only did he track down and collect (without harming himself, mind you, as large monitor lizards, the helodermids, and about half of all venomous snakes are very dangerous) two of each of these animals, but he then maintained them on his ship for between 40 and 150 days. In order to do that, he needs to, in fact, bring far more than those original animals. Since many lizards (including all monitors), all amphisbaenids, and all snakes are predatory, you now need to find large quanitites of other animals to be used as food for the original animals. The smaller monitor lizards should do nicely on a diet of rodents, as would a ton of the snakes. The larger monitors will need to be fed with sheep, lamb, or cattle, as they need large prey. Smaller lizards can be fed with insects, but unfortunately, since they feed on small prey, they need large quanities of it daily. Now, there are the specialty animals. Helodermids feed largely on the eggs of birds and reptiles, but they also sometimes eat rodents, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could have been fed rodents on the trip.

Now, my specialty, snakes. Most snakes are generalist feeders that eat a variety of prey items. Many are not. For example, there are two groups of snakes, one Asian (Pareas, etc.) , the other South American (Dipsas, Sibon, etc.), that feed solely on slugs and snails and are specially adapted to do so. So now you need tons of snails, because the snails they eat are relatively small. How about the genera Elachistodon or Dasypeltis that feed on nothing but birds eggs? These are not large snakes, and although their mouths and throats are specially adapted to stretch to amazing sizes, it's not likely an average Dasypeltis could eat a chicken egg. So now you need the eggs of a medium sized bird. Other snakes feed primarily or entirely on other snakes. A king cobra is a huge snake (average lenght 14 feet) and it feeds entirely on other large snakes (including pythons) and monitor lizards. So now you need a steady supply of 8 foot long rat snakes and bull snakes or 6 foot long monitor lizards to keep the king cobras fed. I shouldn't forget to mention the smaller desert snakes (Bitis peringueyi, for example) that feet entirely on small lizards.

I'm sure you can see my point, the story isn't logical by any scientific standards (or even common sense!). Now, if you take the bible with a grain of salt (understanding that standards, logic, and perception back then were very, very different) you can see how maybe Noah's Ark actually makes sense. Maybe an area was flooded, and maybe Noah got all the important animals he could think of. Then the area drains, and despite the fact that he couldn't have gotten all of the animals, therefore causing many to be locally extirpated, since the flood didn't cover the whole world, in due time, these animals infiltrate the once flooded area again. It's certainly a strange story, and a long shot, but still entirely possible, unlike the story currently presented to you.

So, no, science doesn't back up the bible taken at face value. It can, however, be used in conjuction with the bible (taken with a grain of salt, pardon the cliche) to gain a different perspective on how the world is or was.

[i_hate_nu_metal]

ChrisRezendes, you make an awesome point. A rather lengthy point, but an awesome one, nonetheless. Oh, and I hate nu metal. hahahahahaha
I slay myself.

[corroded]

So, no, science doesn't back up the bible taken at face value. It can, however, be used in conjuction with the bible (taken with a grain of salt, pardon the cliche) to gain a different perspective on how the world is or was.
very true...

[johnmansley]

The part of the Bible that seems most contradictory to me is the whole Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story and it's connotations. God is supposed to be a perfect being/entity but he can't be that perfect if he couldn't create a human that could resist temptation. God Himself admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations. If He is so perfect, then surely whatever he chooses to create can be done so perfectly without any flaws, including man.

Besides if God really loved us, as priests contend, then why put us in a position in which we may be tempted? Why not just revel in His perfect creation? He could have done without the tree, the apple and the snake (sorry Chris!) quite easily and everything would have been hunky-dorey. Analyse the problem: man failed a test set by God and as such was given the free will to do as he pleased whether it be helping his fellow man or killing him. Follow the chain of events back and we reach the real failure. Eve for giving into temptation? The snake for tempting Eve? No. God. For the simple reason of creating the tree. No tree, and there's no apple with which the snake could tempt Eve. By this logical argument, God is flawed.

There are so many issues within the Bible that science and logical thought defeat without even breaking sweat. The religious leaders of the 15th and 16th centuries were scared shitless by scientists who were smashing their religiously held belief that the Earth was put at the centre of the universe by God. Copernicus found that we weren't even the centre of the Solar System never mind the universe. What did the religious leaders do? They put him under house arrest for crimes of heresy because they were scared that their theological beliefs were about to be smashed to smithereens.

But what of religion after these scientific discoveries? The logical thing that should have happened was that people begin to question the whole of religion. This would be logical seeming that aspects of religion were being disproved. However, back in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Church was feared and held sway over the public. Eventually, when the evidence became insummountable after the discoveries of Galileo Galilei and the brilliance of Isaac Newton (equations do not lie), the Church began peddling the, 'the Bible is meant to symbolize...' mantra and the people shrugged and carried on believing - forgetting that the Church had just lied to them for the past 2000 years.

For me, it is the Church that is continually moving the goalposts, but each time science realigns it's aim and kicks right between the sticks. Soon enough, there will be nothing left to disprove and all that will be left of the Church will be faith without foundation. To people who still believe and get something out of their faith: good luck to you, if it helps you in life then I'm all for it. It just does nothing for me.

[Chris Rezendes]

The part of the Bible that seems most contradictory to me is the whole Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story and it's connotations. God is supposed to be a perfect being/entity but he can't be that perfect if he couldn't create a human that could resist temptation. God Himself admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations. If He is so perfect, then surely whatever he chooses to create can be done so perfectly without any flaws, including man.

Besides if God really loved us, as priests contend, then why put us in a position in which we may be tempted? Why not just revel in His perfect creation? He could have done without the tree, the apple and the snake ...

One interesting belief, and I don't recall reading this in the bible, but is has been spewed forth by the religious, is as follows- snakes were banished to crawling around on their bellies for the rest of their existence as a punishment for Lucifer having taken the form of one of them. This doesn't really make any logical sense. First off, according to the bible, Satan himself decided to take the form of the snake, not vice versa. Why would the snake be punished for that?

It also begs the question, in what manner did the snake locomote BEFORE that happened? Obviously snakes were originally lizards, but that was around 70 million years ago. So, I suppose we are to assume that snakes, despite their lack of limbs, managed to navigate through rugged terrain by bouncing up and down on their tails or some other such nonsense. This whole idea also brings up other questions. What transgressions were committed against God and man by the earthworms? What of salamanders (depite their legs, many still crawl on their bellies)? What about non-snake limbless lizards, or lizards such as skinks with limbs so shortened they also must travel on their bellies? How about caecillians? I could go on forever.

Again, I don't recall ever reading this in the bible, and I doubt it's there, it's just a completely asinine hypothesis brought to us by those who draw illogical conclusions from the bible.

Despite my personal atheism, I don't seek to destroy the credibility of the bible. I mean, there is a slight possibility that I could be wrong and there could be a God, or some sort of deity with supreme control over everything. I merely propose that those who seek spiritual benefit from the bible not to take it at face value, because that is when things get dangerous. That is where blind faith comes in, and that propels violence.

[johnmansley]

Again, I don't recall ever reading this in the bible, and I doubt it's there, it's just a completely asinine hypothesis brought to us by those who draw illogical conclusions from the bible.

I agree. As an account as to why we are here and how the universe was formed it is completely worthless when compared to what science has taught us. I prefer to believe in the numbers, the equations and the work of brilliant men like Newton, Darwin and Einstein rather than the faith that "it just is." I am certain that future advancements in physics, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience will render the Bible useless.

[Trendkill 420]

My beliefs are my beliefs so I'm not posting these links as any attempt at an arguement.
They are an interesting read though, for atheist and christian alike

http://www.newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm#archeology
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.ordination.org/MCAC%20Backup/proof.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#bible_and_science

[Chris Rezendes]

My beliefs are my beliefs so I'm not posting these links as any attempt at an arguement.
They are an interesting read though, for atheist and christian alike

http://www.newcreationstudies.org/NewCreation/proof.htm#archeology
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.ordination.org/MCAC%20Backup/proof.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#bible_and_science

The only pages I have read, which are the "clarifyingchristianity" pages, are full of errors. This page, http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml , in particular-

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land.

Wrong. There are several crocidilians that inhabit saltwater. Going back as far as this quote dates, there certainly may have been even more. Beyond that, the quote wasn't nearly specific enough to determine that the animal didn't spend any time on land. Contrarily, I got the impression that it did. If it did not, it would have been much more easy for fisherman to avoid, and therefore not much of a reason to try to kill one.

Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can pry Leviathan’s jaws open. Yet we are all familiar with “alligator wrestlers” who routinely pry open an alligator’s jaws. Alligators do not match the description of Leviathan—and we are not done yet.

Well, I can't argue with that. Alligators DON'T match the description of Leviathan. Specifically, alligators were never as large, intimidating, or man-eating as the crocodiles. More importantly, as far back as these quotes date, there were never any alligators anywhere near the areas the authors of the bible had lived.

Far more importantly, they are quite factually incorrect. Who here is familiar with 'alligator wrestlers' who routinely pry open crocodilian jaws? Nobody. Let me tell you why. The jaws of alligators are crocodiles are extremely powerful in that their jaw closing muscles provide a crushing force. Specifically, it has been calculated that the jaws of a Crocodylus niloticus generates 2 tons of pressure per inch. No human back then would have had NEARLY enough power to pry those jaws open. On the other hand, the jaw OPENING muscles of crocodilians (especially those of Alligator missipiensis, the animal used by alligator wrestlers) are quite weak, and can be held closed reliably with tape or rope, size dependent of course. A person my size (5'10, 220lbs) could easily hold shut the jaws of a 10 foot long alligator. Of course, it wouldn't be recommended, as it could go into a death roll to shake you off, turn around and bite your arm off, but that's neither here nor there.

Considering the areas in which the bible was written, it seems almost impossible that they were NOT referring to a Crocodylus niloticus. Even more oddly, they contend that not only did some dinosaurs breathe fire like dragons, but that this SEA DINOSAUR did. Besides the gross inaccuracy in referring to a prehistoric marine reptile as a dinosaur, what purpose would any marine animal had of BREATHING FIRE? Furthermore, how exactly did it breathe fire underwater? For the record, Kronosaurus ate cephalopods and crustaceans.

Also along that page, they deny evolution, as many Christians do. There are no serious biologists that deny evolution. Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific fact. The fact that they go against all of our knowledge of evolution (dinosaurs were created ONE DAY before humans?!) proves straight away that the bible is not substantiated by logical biology. All of their matching of vague comments to try to substantiate it hardly changes that.

[Chris Rezendes]

I'd also like to point out that none of those pages really use scientific evidence, and contrarily (especially this page http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm ), try to pick apart and destroy the credibility of biology. It's kind of funny. Here, this quote is the best-

'Although evolutionists state that... humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.'

Humans didn't only result from animals, humans are animals! That is a scientific fact. Also of HIGH importance is that fact that the only people actively campaigning to deny the facts of evolution are those who follow the bible. Tell me that's a coincidence!

[johnmansley]

May I also add that all life on this planet evolved from simple, single-celled organisms over a period of hundreds of millions of years. There is no evidence - scientific or otherwise - to suggest that we were just 'created' from nowhere by a higher being.

The way I see it, the Bible was an attempt to explain why we are here and how we came into being before we had such a thing as scientific advancement. It worked well when people were, generally, uneducated and scared of the repurcussions ascerted by the Church. For about the last 3-400 years science has debunked the majority of the Bible's explanations of creation and replaced them with theories that have foundations of substance. Foundations based in mathematics cannot be argued with as we can visibly test hypotheses. Unfortunately for religious people, the same is not true of much of what they believe in.

[briyo2289]

May I also add that all life on this planet evolved from simple, single-celled organisms over a period of hundreds of millions of years. There is no evidence - scientific or otherwise - to suggest that we were just 'created' from nowhere by a higher being.

The way I see it, the Bible was an attempt to explain why we are here and how we came into being before we had such a thing as scientific advancement. It worked well when people were, generally, uneducated and scared of the repurcussions ascerted by the Church. For about the last 3-400 years science has debunked the majority of the Bible's explanations of creation and replaced them with theories that have foundations of substance. Foundations based in mathematics cannot be argued with as we can visibly test hypotheses. Unfortunately for religious people, the same is not true of much of what they believe in.

Then how did the world get here? if youre using science as evidenc then thats physically impossibe seeing as how one of the most inportant laws in chemistry and physics is the law of conservation: matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

also, you make it sound like every scientist completely agrees that evolution is the way the truth and the light. They dont. There are a lot of scientists that arent necessarily pro-religion but are anti evolution. One of the most popular ideas is Intelligent Design. Basically it says that the world and the human genome are so ridiculously complicated that they couldnt have randomly formed via natural selection, especially in the time frame that people say. Also as i understand it, evolution generally teaches that the first cell came from a random combinig of elements and physical forces to create a chemical reaction that created the first strand of DNA. This idea also implies that there were already physical forces like gravity and elemrnst present. Unless they were *created* im not quite sure how they would get there. There are many other ideas incorporated into intelligent design but im not that well acquainted with the theory. Its real easy to look up though.


The part of the Bible that seems most contradictory to me is the whole Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story and it's connotations. God is supposed to be a perfect being/entity but he can't be that perfect if he couldn't create a human that could resist temptation. God Himself admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations. If He is so perfect, then surely whatever he chooses to create can be done so perfectly without any flaws, including man.

Besides if God really loved us, as priests contend, then why put us in a position in which we may be tempted? Why not just revel in His perfect creation? He could have done without the tree, the apple and the snake (sorry Chris!) quite easily and everything would have been hunky-dorey. Analyse the problem: man failed a test set by God and as such was given the free will to do as he pleased whether it be helping his fellow man or killing him. Follow the chain of events back and we reach the real failure. Eve for giving into temptation? The snake for tempting Eve? No. God. For the simple reason of creating the tree. No tree, and there's no apple with which the snake could tempt Eve. By this logical argument, God is flawed.



How is god flawed? Because he created a sinful creaure or because he gave his creature the chance to be tempted?

God knew that we would sin. He put the tree there because while making us perfect to start with, he also gave us freewill. If he hadnt given us freewill we wouldnt have sinned but we also wouldnt have been able to sin and it wouldnt have meant anything. Just like its not an amzing accomplishment everytime you tell a computer to perform a simple command and it does. Becaue without freewill pretty much we are just robots.

Id also like to see the part of the bible where god "admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations" I sure dont remeber that in the bible. But who knows maybe you have a catholic bible ;)

[briyo2289]

Also of HIGH importance is that fact that the only people actively campaigning to deny the facts of evolution are those who follow the bible. Tell me that's a coincidence!

If this were true it wouldnt be a coincidence but its not. There are plenty of teachers and scientists who dont belive in either and who dont want evolution or creationism taught. Im not quite sure what other rational theories are left but there are people who arent christian who "actively campaign" agianst evolution

[Chris Rezendes]

If this were true it wouldnt be a coincidence but its not. There are plenty of teachers and scientists who dont belive in either and who dont want evolution or creationism taught. Im not quite sure what other rational theories are left but there are people who arent christian who "actively campaign" agianst evolution

I've studied biology since I've been able to read (quite literally) and I don't recall any people of the sort. If they do exist, I'd really appreciate it if you would provide a link to show me who they are, what ideals they follow, and exactly how they believe life came to be.

I'd also like to see exactly how these people classify various forms of life, seeing as the taxonomic system currently in place is entirely built upon Darwin's ideas of evolution.

[PST 88]

Just for the hell of it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Just figured this would be interesting and relevant. Don't think I'm taking sides here. I've read through heaps of this shit already and my hands are washed. Just thought it'd be worth the read.

[Nihilist]

OK, so, I semi-read a few pages. Are we actually on topic?

[PST 88]

They went from a discussion of gaybashing to one of the morality of homosexuality to one of the validity of Christian morality to one the validity of the Christian worldview in general. I wouldn't say it's remotely on topic, but it's more focused and intelligent than at least 85% of the rest of Chit Chat.

For the most part.

[andrewc]

please close this jarrod!!!

theres an intense hammer rage shirt in it for you!

[PST 88]

Why would you close a thread in which two people are having a unheated debate? Their opinions may not be swayed, but at least they can share them.
To the people who want the thread closed: Why? There have been no slanging matches and the thread has stayed on topic. What's the problem? If you've had enough don't read it. This is the problem in society as well: just sweep it under the carpet, it'll just go away. If only society could sit down and discuss the issue as we have in this thread - maybe there'd be less morons going around and beating up people just because they are gay.
Closing a thread in which people are intelligently discussing their beliefs - not a wandering and aimless conversation that would be better left to a private message or instant messenger, but actually making this place a forum for conflicting ideas, whatever they may be, until the discussion wears out of its own volition - when Now Playing threads exist and RTTs are clogged with 'lol' posts would baffle me. Why everyone seems to want this because the discussion gets lengthy would also baffle me if it weren't the case everywhere else.

But I'm not buying anybody any damn shirts. I don't have enough as it is.

[johnmansley]

Then how did the world get here? if youre using science as evidenc then thats physically impossibe seeing as how one of the most inportant laws in chemistry and physics is the law of conservation: matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

Not entirely correct: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed but it can be converted into other forms of energy and - thanks to Einstein's derivation of E = mc^2 - it can also be converted into matter. As a caviat: black holes are the universe's energy destroyers. Once energy travels beyond the event horizon of the black hole it can no longer be measured nor observed since it would have to propagate at a velocity greater than that of light and hence is effectively destroyed. However, small fractions of energy can escape in the form of Hawking radiation but how this works is beyond my level of understanding.

The Earth was created through gravitational effects causing dust clouds to congeal. The gravitational effect was heightened by these clouds then orbiting the Sun (which was also born of the very same clouds). This, combined with friction amid the dust clouds as they formed increasingly large rocks, helped form the Earth and it was specifically friction which caused the Earth's molten iron core to form. This process took billions of years before anything remotely resembling a planet took shape.

This is a proven fact and it's as far as you can possibly get from believing that the world was created in 7 days. A major tenet of Christianity lays on the ground in tattered ruins and yet Christians still shake their heads and say, "OK, we'll give you that one, but the rest of the Bible is true."

also, you make it sound like every scientist completely agrees that evolution is the way the truth and the light. They dont. There are a lot of scientists that arent necessarily pro-religion but are anti evolution.

The number of creationist scientists is a microscopically small proportion of the scientific community. They are the sort of scientists for whom the last big break through in science was Newton's theory of gravitation and they usually shun the grandiose works of the 20th Century - namely General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - in favour of a classical approach.

This is daft to say the least as classical mechanics cannot even describe the heliocentric orbit of Mercury around the Sun never mind the big cosmological questions that General Relativity has helped to solve. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful scientific theory that man has ever postulated yet they shun it's strange (yet physically observed and mathematically proven) implications in favour of old, religion friendly theories. They're the sort of scientist equivalent to a person who would prefer to drive around in a classic 1904 Model T Ford that cannot muster velocities greater than walking pace (when it isn't braking down) and proclaim it as the best and most efficient car that the world has ever seen.

One of the most popular ideas is Intelligent Design. Basically it says that the world and the human genome are so ridiculously complicated that they couldnt have randomly formed via natural selection, especially in the time frame that people say.

Yes, they are ridiculously complicated and the odds of it happening are billions to one. But think about this: the universe is infinite. And there are an infinite number of universes that make up the multiverse. Even odds of a billion billion to one are amazingly good odds in an infinite universe of infinite universes.

Also as i understand it, evolution generally teaches that the first cell came from a random combinig of elements and physical forces to create a chemical reaction that created the first strand of DNA. This idea also implies that there were already physical forces like gravity and elemrnst present. Unless they were *created* im not quite sure how they would get there. There are many other ideas incorporated into intelligent design but im not that well acquainted with the theory. Its real easy to look up though.

The universe has always been, there is no concept of beginning or end. The particular universe that we inhabit is thought to have been created when two massive 'branes' (it's complicated!) collided and realeased an almight amount of energy (the big bang). The expansion of this energy and all the matter that was born from it, constitutes our universe.

How is god flawed? Because he created a sinful creaure or because he gave his creature the chance to be tempted?

Yes. If God was perfect, He would have created a being that was able to withstand temptation.

God knew that we would sin.

That's a huge cop out. If He knew that we would sin, why didn't he erradicate that particular propensity from our psyche? He obviously enjoyed watching us sin.

He put the tree there because while making us perfect to start with, he also gave us freewill. If he hadnt given us freewill we wouldnt have sinned but we also wouldnt have been able to sin and it wouldnt have meant anything. Just like its not an amzing accomplishment everytime you tell a computer to perform a simple command and it does. Becaue without freewill pretty much we are just robots.

Yes, but if we don't know any other form of existence then we have nothing to compare it to. I could be wrong, but from what I remember, God only gave mankind free will after Adam and Eve had eaten the apple from the tree and been banished from the Garden Of Eden.

Id also like to see the part of the bible where god "admits he cannot be perfect by feeling the need to test his creations" I sure dont remeber that in the bible. But who knows maybe you have a catholic bible ;)

Well, it wasn't in the Bible - it's what I gleaned from that aspect of the story, but putting a tree in the Garden Of Eden and then telling Adam and Eve not to eat from it is a test. Why put the tree there if they weren't to enjoy it's fruits? Furthermore, He created the snake to tempt them!

Why test Adam and Eve? If He created them exactly how He intended then, if He is perfect, by logical processes Adam and Eve must be perfect. If God needs to test His creations then He is doubting whether He has created a perfect being. He doubts that He is perfect. If it then turns out that Adam and Eve aren't perfect, this implies that God is also not perfect since a perfect being should by all logic be able to create a perfect creation. Just by logically scrutinizing this story alone, I can't see how God can be perfect.

[briyo2289]

I've studied biology since I've been able to read (quite literally) and I don't recall any people of the sort. If they do exist, I'd really appreciate it if you would provide a link to show me who they are, what ideals they follow, and exactly how they believe life came to be.


pretty much every other religion in the world, who obviously don't believe in the bible, yet still think evolution is true.

[briyo2289]

The Earth was created through gravitational effects causing dust clouds to congeal. The gravitational effect was heightened by these clouds then orbiting the Sun (which was also born of the very same clouds). This, combined with friction amid the dust clouds as they formed increasingly large rocks, helped form the Earth and it was specifically friction which caused the Earth's molten iron core to form. This process took billions of years before anything remotely resembling a planet took shape.

This is a proven fact and it's as far as you can possibly get from believing that the world was created in 7 days. A major tenet of Christianity lays on the ground in tattered ruins and yet Christians still shake their heads and say, "OK, we'll give you that one, but the rest of the Bible is true."

OK, i dont really mind that you belive in evolution and think that christianity is a joke but the creation theory that your not talking about is absolutely not a "proven fact." If it were there wouldnt be any more debate about the creation. Unless I slept through that part of biology, I sure dont remember the day that my teacher showed us the evidence and said here it is. because that never happened. Although theres a lot of people who believe it it is by no means a "proven fact".