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

__________________

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?

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

well put.

__________________

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.

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

ah the joys of sexual harassment

__________________

UNIVERSITY CHICKS IN A NUTSHELL
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=

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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

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.

__________________

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

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

__________________

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...

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

Obviously, you and I have completely different levels of tolerance

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.

__________________

holy shit perfectly said

__________________

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%

__________________

Hahaha!

__________________

Right. But that should only effect things that are naturally effete, not culturally.


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.


Right.

__________________

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 were eating pussy at 5?

__________________

Yeah but thats cause I'm a pimp.

__________________

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.

__________________

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



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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

n00b

__________________

check your pms

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

Well.......STAY ON TOPIC 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

__________________

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


Its posts like these that get good threads closed.

__________________

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

__________________

Good points chris.



This may add fuel to this highly burning fire

http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html
http://www.firststone.org/articles/...an_medinger.htm

__________________

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.

__________________

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.



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

__________________

Thats one bigass fucking post haha

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

__________________

weed's got nothing to do with it.

__________________

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.

__________________

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?

__________________

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.

__________________

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


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.

__________________

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

__________________

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

__________________

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?

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

rotfl @ metal's cats

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.

__________________

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

__________________

damn it that isnt h8

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

Hey andrew stop giving clowns a bad name!

__________________

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.

__________________

you are a fucking goof buddy

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

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



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.

__________________

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.

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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.


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.


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.

__________________

thank you

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

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.




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.

__________________

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

__________________

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.



Exactly.



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.



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.



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.



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)?



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.



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

__________________

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.




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




wow. thats messed up.



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.

__________________

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

close this.

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

I agree, close it.

__________________

Why was it started again?

__________________

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".
If a guy wants 3 wives let the poor prick. One's two much for me.

__________________