Originality Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #27062
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
   
|
Posted: Mon 2006-06-19 16:35
|
 |
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I don't regard marriage as meaningful. So okay, it's about two people having decided to spend their life together, but I can do that without being married, can't I? If a couple gets married today, it doesn't really mean anything, because in one of three cases (I'm blatantly inventing my statistics, by the way) they'll get divorced anyway. It may be important for religious people to see their relationship blessed by god, but then I'm not a religious person, so I think that's all bullcrap anyway.
If two people want to get married, though, why shouldn't they? What's the big deal if they're the same sex? It's still two people who have agreed on living together as a couple. It's their private life and they'll have the relationship anyway, so why not let them make it official if they want to. Just because some people don't think it's right doesn't give them the right to stop it. A few decades ago, there were people who thought it wasn't right for a black man and a white woman to get married (or the other way around). Today, we would say this is intolerant. And it is! If the Christians don't want the gays to marry in church, that's their business, I dislike them anyway, but I don't see any harm in letting them have an "official union" (or whatever the word is....it isn't called marriage, is it?).
And NO, it will not lead to people getting married to children or animals. An animal can't talk and therefore can't agree, and children are too young to make their own decision and should be under the supervision of adults until a certain age (yes I know this discussion is going on in another thread).
I also think that everyone is born bisexual. In any case, I think everyone is able to love people of both sexes on a psychological level. The attraction to one particular sex (or both), in my opinion, is defined by your genetic disposition as well as the experiences you make in your childhood/youth.
Be more tolerant!, for fuck's sake! 
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
walls
Committee Member
Post #27136
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-20 02:12
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
homosexuals can marry one another for all i care. so long as they stay the fuck away from me.
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #27141
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
   
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-20 03:18
|
|
| Politics: Satanist |
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
I don't regard marriage as meaningful. So okay, it's about two people having decided to spend their life together, but I can do that without being married, can't I? If a couple gets married today, it doesn't really mean anything, because in one of three cases (I'm blatantly inventing my statistics, by the way) they'll get divorced anyway. It may be important for religious people to see their relationship blessed by god, but then I'm not a religious person, so I think that's all bullcrap anyway.
If two people want to get married, though, why shouldn't they? What's the big deal if they're the same sex? It's still two people who have agreed on living together as a couple. It's their private life and they'll have the relationship anyway, so why not let them make it official if they want to. Just because some people don't think it's right doesn't give them the right to stop it. A few decades ago, there were people who thought it wasn't right for a black man and a white woman to get married (or the other way around). Today, we would say this is intolerant. And it is! If the Christians don't want the gays to marry in church, that's their business, I dislike them anyway, but I don't see any harm in letting them have an "official union" (or whatever the word is....it isn't called marriage, is it?).
And NO, it will not lead to people getting married to children or animals. An animal can't talk and therefore can't agree, and children are too young to make their own decision and should be under the supervision of adults until a certain age (yes I know this discussion is going on in another thread).
I also think that everyone is born bisexual. In any case, I think everyone is able to love people of both sexes on a psychological level. The attraction to one particular sex (or both), in my opinion, is defined by your genetic disposition as well as the experiences you make in your childhood/youth.
Be more tolerant!, for fuck's sake! |
I'm in agreement with you. My only beef with marriage is when young people get married. I think that is some states say that 15 years, or in Alabama where 13 year olds can marry, doesn't that also mean they should have the right to vote, to own property, to get a job, to buy a house? Doesn't it mean that if the State grants you the responsibility to get married, you have the responsibility to learn how to drive a car at 13 years old?
I just find it ridiculous.
As for same-sex marriage, it's no one's business but the two people getting married. Fundamentalists should fuck off and do something constructive.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walls
Committee Member
Post #27170
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-20 12:21
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
i don't think homosexuality is a crime, and i believe in free will. we should not allow "private sex life not your business" to keep us from asking what the root cause of the problem is.
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum71/44898.html
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #27198
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-20 15:39
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Ah, so it's not a crime, but it's a problem anyway? Why is two people falling in love a problem? Why is two people having fun together a problem? Just because you or some other people think it isn't right?
They're not hurting anyone! What's the problem??
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Becca
Minister of Peace
Post #27213
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 1347
Total Words: 165,882
Average words per post: 123.15
PoliMatch: n/a
  
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-20 17:46
|
|
| Politics: Green |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
Ah, so it's not a crime, but it's a problem anyway? Why is two people falling in love a problem? Why is two people having fun together a problem? Just because you or some other people think it isn't right?
They're not hurting anyone! What's the problem?? |
The problem is most guys who are heterosexual generally have some kind of homophobia in order to show just 'how much of a man' they are.
I guess It's a problem between the male gender. Women just dont have stupid problems like this LOL. Oh and lets call it a christian fundamentalist problem as well... and a conservative problem ,too.
What do we have here?
-Men
-Christians
-Conservatives
Does that ring a bell? Homosexuality is only a problem to those who are afraid of getting involved in scandalous things and those who are afraid of questioning things which have been the same to humanity for a long time, therefore they are afraid of future and new inventions. May it be presidents. Or 'strong' men in general. No guy who ever said he hates gays has impressed me , by the way. I always thought they were just too afraid , which certainly isn't a plus for me when I decide which guy I like and which guy I dont like. SO guys, why dont you try to accept anyone of your gender? I'm having no general problem with lesbians, and I think that's the case for most of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walls
Committee Member
Post #27290
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-21 11:50
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Appeal to emotion wrote: |
Ah, so it's not a crime, but it's a problem anyway? Why is two people falling in love a problem? Why is two people having fun together a problem? Just because you or some other people think it isn't right?
They're not hurting anyone! What's the problem?? |
you guys underestimate the damage environmental toxins can to do to the human body, especially during fetal development. and how could you know the difference between genetics and disruptions in the natural development of the fetus because you bombarded the fetus and yourself with pseudoestrogens from soy? the crime is giving people chemicals that turn frogs into hermaphrodites. but it doesn't bother me, a CDC doctor who doesn't know why her mother has cancer of the body is good Shakespearean drama. and i'm not going to shed a tear when males and females become more and more infertile because they can't connect the dots, it is a mercy for babies to die of stillbirths than be born with the congenital birth defects plaguing this world.
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2+2=5
Committee Member
Post #27296
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 403
Total Words: 53,394
Average words per post: 132.49
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-21 12:49
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Germany |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Walls, first of all, I think you didn't answer my question. And then I'm tempted to think that you wrote that everyone who's gay actually has a birth defect. Would that be right?
Have you actually ever realized that gay people are not in any way different from heterosexuals apart from their sexual preferences? As far as I know, they have the same physical strength and are just as intelligent. Meaning they're not disabled in any way - are you able conceive of that, walls?
What I am talking about is sexual preference. You are talking about disabled children - there is a difference, you know.
_________________
Det snurrar i min skalle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walls
Committee Member
Post #27344
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-21 22:06
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
Ah, so it's not a crime, but it's a problem anyway? Why is two people falling in love a problem? Why is two people having fun together a problem? Just because you or some other people think it isn't right?
They're not hurting anyone! What's the problem?? |
i already said i agree with the solution to this debate most have agreed upon, to just let them be and do whatever they want.
| 2+2=5 wrote: |
| As far as I know, they have the same physical strength and are just as intelligent. Meaning they're not disabled in any way - are you able conceive of that, walls? |
No, but I do have a gut feeling that problems can occur when you disrupt the development of growing babies or babies in the womb. and i never advocated bad genes or heredity as the cause of birth defects so i can have my Jihad on homosexuality. but if you want to go on calling homosexuality "sexual preference", it doesn't bother me.
| From http://home.austin.rr.com/rsincla/homosexuality.html |
| A primary physiological difference between homosexual and heterosexual men is in the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that influences sexual behavior and sexual aggression (Grady n.p.). On average, males tend to have much larger cell structures in certain parts of the hypothalamus, while females tend to have smaller cell structures. However, Simon LeVay discovered that the hypothalamus in the brains of gay men is much smaller than that of heterosexual men (Grady n.p.). Furthermore, LeVay speculates that the missing section causes the lack of desire for women, however he also acknowledges that, homosexual behavior may cause the change in size (Grady n.p.)." |
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #36758
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 01:57
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
Well, you have to remember that nature does not have any goal. It is essentialy organized chaos centered around genetic mutation. Nature is a tremendous system of trial-and-error. It basically spews out a bunch of random proposals, and the machine that is Earth's ecosystem rejects and retains the proposals accordingly. Hence, evolution.
In essence, I guess one could say that the 'gay gene' may serve as a type of population control, though it certainly is not intended as such, if it is intended for anything at all.
Also, anything that has to do with body chemistry is defenitely linked to genes. |
Well put, but not exactly accurate. The proposals aren't entirely random; as they can be amended (influenced) by preexisting conditions. For example lots of radioactivity (Chernobyl) or toxicity (Vietnam, agent orange) can increase defects. Similarly, it is possible an overabundance of people (represented by odors and substances put out by a mass of humanity, including but certainly not limited to trace amounts of hormones in water from birth control pills) can confuse and serve to influence trends in ova, sperm and fetal development.
So while conception is indeed governed by random permutations and combinations of genetic; it (and early growth) can be subtly influenced by an overpopulated environment.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #36764
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 04:35
|
|
| Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
Well, you have to remember that nature does not have any goal. It is essentialy organized chaos centered around genetic mutation. Nature is a tremendous system of trial-and-error. It basically spews out a bunch of random proposals, and the machine that is Earth's ecosystem rejects and retains the proposals accordingly. Hence, evolution.
In essence, I guess one could say that the 'gay gene' may serve as a type of population control, though it certainly is not intended as such, if it is intended for anything at all.
Also, anything that has to do with body chemistry is defenitely linked to genes. |
Well put, but not exactly accurate. The proposals aren't entirely random; as they can be amended (influenced) by preexisting conditions. For example lots of radioactivity (Chernobyl) or toxicity (Vietnam, agent orange) can increase defects. Similarly, it is possible an overabundance of people (represented by odors and substances put out by a mass of humanity, including but certainly not limited to trace amounts of hormones in water from birth control pills) can confuse and serve to influence trends in ova, sperm and fetal development.
So while conception is indeed governed by random permutations and combinations of genetic; it (and early growth) can be subtly influenced by an overpopulated environment. |
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you subltly implying that homosexuality could be a survival reaction to an overpopulated planet? I.e. people become homosexual because the species might die out from overpopulation, or am I misinterpreting you?
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD-sama
Minister of Truth
Post #36768
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2117
Total Words: 631,269
Average words per post: 298.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 12:58
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: United Kingdom |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you subtly implying that homosexuality could be a survival reaction to an overpopulated planet? I.e. people become homosexual because the species might die out from overpopulation, or am I misinterpreting you? |
It may have been originally. Many creatures have population controls effecting litter sizes based on available resources so that their offspring don't compete each other to mutual destruction. Last time I checked the best guess was that homosexuality is a largely caused by the mother during gestation, and this motherly tendency was genetically inherited to some extent. Such a model fits well with the activation of some such population control mechanism bar a few points, the mother has none of the typical means of detecting overpopulation, there is no contemporary selective pressure against overpopulation.
It's overall unlikely that it was an evolutionary process by which homosexuality became so prevalent, but if it is genetic the relevant allele may well have been some kind of response to population originally.
That said there is only a small selective pressure against a mother who produces both sexual and asexual offspring (with a tendency towards sexual offspring); it is not beyond belief that such a phenotype could survive within a population(particularly one as communal as ours) for a long while.
All that said my biological knowledge is fast becoming out of date.
_________________
"I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
-Frederica Bernkastel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #36769
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 14:55
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
Well, you have to remember that nature does not have any goal. It is essentialy organized chaos centered around genetic mutation. Nature is a tremendous system of trial-and-error. It basically spews out a bunch of random proposals, and the machine that is Earth's ecosystem rejects and retains the proposals accordingly. Hence, evolution.
In essence, I guess one could say that the 'gay gene' may serve as a type of population control, though it certainly is not intended as such, if it is intended for anything at all.
Also, anything that has to do with body chemistry is defenitely linked to genes. |
Well put, but not exactly accurate. The proposals aren't entirely random; as they can be amended (influenced) by preexisting conditions. For example lots of radioactivity (Chernobyl) or toxicity (Vietnam, agent orange) can increase defects. Similarly, it is possible an overabundance of people (represented by odors and substances put out by a mass of humanity, including but certainly not limited to trace amounts of hormones in water from birth control pills) can confuse and serve to influence trends in ova, sperm and fetal development.
So while conception is indeed governed by random permutations and combinations of genetic; it (and early growth) can be subtly influenced by an overpopulated environment. |
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but are you subltly implying that homosexuality could be a survival reaction to an overpopulated planet? I.e. people become homosexual because the species might die out from overpopulation, or am I misinterpreting you? |
That would be a misinterpretation.
At the time I was focused on the random comment;
Neither evolution nor the planet can have a goal...
nonetheless it can be a consequence of overpopulation;
it could be argued some people could have that goal in mind.
But psychology isn't my strong suit.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD-sama
Minister of Truth
Post #36774
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2117
Total Words: 631,269
Average words per post: 298.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 23:17
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: United Kingdom |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
That would be a misinterpretation.
At the time I was focused on the random comment;
Neither evolution nor the planet can have a goal...
nonetheless it can be a consequence of overpopulation;
it could be argued some people could have that goal in mind.
But psychology isn't my strong suit. |
Wouldn't it be more logical for people to simply tend to have less children if it was psychological? There is quite convincing evidence to suggest that people have less children in situations where there is high density and low mortality, but then again some kind of noble psychological undercurrent is not the only possible explanation there either.
_________________
"I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I tried hard to get out from the bottom of the well.
I wanted to know the world that was outside of the well.
So I climbed up numerous of times despite falling down over and over again.
But then I realized it.
The higher and higher I climb, the pain increases when I fall down again.
When my interest in the world outside of the well began to equal the amount of pain,
That was when I finally realized the meaning of the story to Der Froschkönig."
-Frederica Bernkastel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #36777
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-01-28 00:45
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| JD-sama wrote: |
| Wouldn't it be more logical for people to simply tend to have less children if it was psychological? There is quite convincing evidence to suggest that people have less children in situations where there is high density and low mortality, but then again some kind of noble psychological undercurrent is not the only possible explanation there either. |
Well its the prosperity quotient or whatever its call in demographics.
Prosperity (and that which comes with it, education, health care etc.)
is the best known co-relation of population control. When there were concerns
of a population bomb in the 1970's they didn't see/factor in prosperity.
Mostly it has to do with parents selfishly investing as much as they can
in fewer children who are healthy (health care) and need to compete against other
prosperous children. (education) Another aspect is prosperity (work) demanding more
time from the parents (Japan being an extreme example); particularly the
traditional caregiver (mother), again making fewer children a preference.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Post #37068
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2007-02-05 22:11
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-communist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
While reading through this oversized thread I found BB saying that only humans are gay. This is not necessarily the case
| From the link I just provided |
Yep, they're gay
Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon among animals. (My own cat has raised suspicions ever since he tried to mount a cowering male dachshund.) But I was surprised to learn recently that male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams.
This little piece of faunal ephemera might otherwise have gone unnoticed outside the rarely intersecting subcultures of gays and shepherds. But a few months ago, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a p.r. campaign on behalf of gay sheep. PETA claims that researchers in Oregon are killing gay sheep and cutting open their brains in order to learn how to turn gay rams straight. A few weeks ago, London's Sunday Times picked up the story in an unnerving article that states the research "raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual." The story has pinged around quite a few blogs since, and Rush Limbaugh and Martina Navratilova have taken their predicted positions. (Limbaugh: gay activists finally have a reason to oppose abortion. Navratilova: homophobes are murdering gay sheep.)
It's a pity that a story with so much potential for moral indignation and bad sheep puns (ewegenics!) turns out to be wrong. To be sure, a group of researchers led by physiologist Charles Roselli of Oregon Health & Science University has killed about 55 sheep, homosexual and heterosexual, in order to study the neurological basis of sexual attraction. They have confirmed that test sheep are gay by allowing them to pick among males and females that have been restrained in stanchions to await sexual intercourse.
But Roselli says he and his colleagues never had any intention of creating a drug that will turn people straight. And while they have examined whether sheep sexuality can be altered with various treatments, that's not the sole point of their work. Instead, like many other scientists over the past two decades, they are conducting basic research into the nature of sexuality by manipulating hormones in animals. (Such experiments were done on zebra finches--to see if females would pair with other females--as long ago as 1988.) A colleague of Roselli's, Fredrick Stormshak of Oregon State, says a means of identifying gay sheep would be useful to breeders who need to ensure that males will reproduce, but the team hasn't had much success. In its most recent experiments, the group used drugs to block the action of a hormone thought to play a role in making most sheep straight (in other words, this test was designed to produce more homosexual sex, not less). But the results were inconclusive.
The Oregon group's work has shown, however, that gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones, news that should cheer those who see homosexuality and heterosexuality as mere biological variations. (Another small but fascinating finding: all gay rams are butch--none present themselves sexually the way ewes do.)
As Roselli acknowledges in his papers, sexuality in humans is far more complex than in sheep. The whole notion that researchers studying farm animals could develop a "cure" for human homosexuality is a fantasy of the far left and the far right, which both value a gay-sheep "scandal" more than the messy reality that is Roselli's work.
But one could have a good argument about whether adorable little sheep should be killed for sex research. As a gay man, I tend to believe the more we know about the complex interplay of biology and environment that shapes sexuality, the less time we will spend nourishing Old Testament anachronisms about sex.
The more pressing question for me is, What would happen if research like Roselli's did lead to, as the Sunday Times imagined, "a 'straightening' procedure [such as] a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn like a nicotine patch"? I hope scientists have better things to do, but would a Hetero Patch be so awful? It would allow bigoted women to get what they want--straight kids--and ensure that gay kids grow up with moms who, at the very least, didn't try to prevent their existence. Gay people seem to fear we would die out if such a device existed. But the elaborate combination of genes, hormones and psychology that produces same-sex attraction has persisted, against all odds, through the millenniums. Gays have survived Darwinian selection, Nazis, the dulling effects of Will & Grace. I don't think a little patch would ever keep some rams from wanting other rams.
|
Time's archive is so useful. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Fish
Prole
Post #41290
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 16
Total Words: 1,461
Average words per post: 91.31
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2007-04-27 17:29
|
|
| Politics: Slightly Silly Party |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
My argument is short and simple.
For the moment lets put aside all the moral, religious, physiological, and spiritual arguments. The point that is being ignored is the fact that if we deny homosexuals the most fundamental rights which are granted to all Americans (Omitting the effects of the Patriot Act ect.) We are placing these people in a state of Second Class Citizenship. Just as there was a time when Blacks were second class citizens and even when Women were second class citizens. The curse of living in a free society is that those freedoms must apply to all! If any one group is denied those freedoms, then we would be playing out a scene from Animal Farm "All Animals are Equal, But some are more equal than others." Should the States be allowed to ban gay marrige? Yes. Should individual religious institutions be allowed to deny this as well? Of course. But should the law of the land state that Homosexuals are not entitled to the very same freedoms that the rest of us enjoy? NO! Im sure this post will be met with much critique and critisism (At the very least for my grammar and spelling) But I hope that someone will at least attempt to expand upon the point I have made here...
_________________
To be awake is to be alive... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #42305
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2007-05-17 09:22
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Not Listed |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Fish wrote: |
My argument is short and simple.
For the moment lets put aside all the moral, religious, physiological, and spiritual arguments. The point that is being ignored is the fact that if we deny homosexuals the most fundamental rights which are granted to all Americans (Omitting the effects of the Patriot Act ect.) We are placing these people in a state of Second Class Citizenship. Just as there was a time when Blacks were second class citizens and even when Women were second class citizens. The curse of living in a free society is that those freedoms must apply to all! If any one group is denied those freedoms, then we would be playing out a scene from Animal Farm "All Animals are Equal, But some are more equal than others." Should the States be allowed to ban gay marrige? Yes. Should individual religious institutions be allowed to deny this as well? Of course. But should the law of the land state that Homosexuals are not entitled to the very same freedoms that the rest of us enjoy? NO! Im sure this post will be met with much critique and critisism (At the very least for my grammar and spelling) But I hope that someone will at least attempt to expand upon the point I have made here... |
I must state with a certain conviction that I agree up to a point. If individual states decide to ban marriage they would still have to recognize the union. It has to carry over. You are right for the most part that if basic rights are granted only to the heterosexual population, it in essence declares that homosexual and asexual people within the population are relegated to the static second-class citizenry. Such should not be allowed if we are all equal!
....Right now, the situation in this state is appalling - there is a general anti-intellectual sentiment here, the ozag (center) of which are the farmers and the leaders of most of the communities here, the old baby-boomers and the generations beforehand. Not until recently did the high school that I graduated from get a gay-straight alliance. Such was not talked about; it was a relative North Korea of sorts. It's hard for most gays or lesbians to keep a job here; even most bisexuals are looked down upon.
And not until the beginning of this month was there any articles referring to gay couples! There is going to be bias in the system and there has been for quite some time. Frankly this is reminiscent of the KKK singling out black men to hang in the trees, or the popes sending unrecanting Jews to burn at the stakes in the feudalist era. And at the root of it is fundamentalism and the leaders of the backwards-thinking Judeo-Islamo-Christian 'mainstream'. Only the moderates are excused from this, at least most of them have the brain cell capacity to accept and tolerate other free-thinking and acting human beings.
-Kirov
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ygeon
Committee Member
Post #44565
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 421
Total Words: 39,238
Average words per post: 93.2
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-07-11 12:40
|
|
| Politics: Green |
Country: Netherlands |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I honestly see no point in this discussion at all. Homosexuality isn't right. It isn't wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with "morality" or "family values". It's not a threat to anything. It's just there.
Get the fuck over it.
_________________
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orwelliantherye
Filthy Animal
Post #48322
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-10-14 00:26
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| Ygeon wrote: |
I honestly see no point in this discussion at all. Homosexuality isn't right. It isn't wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with "morality" or "family values". It's not a threat to anything. It's just there.
Get the fuck over it. |
I agree... sortof. It's not a threat to anyone. While homosexuality isn't wrong, I do think it's okay. Is it right? Sure. But no more right than hetersexuality, or anymore wrong. The really only reason people honestly think it's wrong is because it's not natural, and doesn't result in procreation.
Well, too bad. I enjoy giving anal sex; there's nothing natural or procreative in that, so what's next? Ban gay sex, and then sodomy? Over my dead body. |
Of course, if one defines natural as "existing in nature", then homosexuality can be considered natural. Indeed, virtually every possible sexual behavior can be considered natural, since most types of perversions occur in nature, even necrophilia. Curiously, the only type of sexual behavior (outside of those which involve manmade items) that cannot be considered natural by the above definition is the one that many modern Christians believe should be an essential precursor to sex: Marriage. I have ranted about this in another thread, but I will say it again: Marriage is unnatural.
PS: About the banning gay sex, it happened before, but all existing laws about it have been overturned for four years as unconstitutional, so your right to assfuck is protected, at least until the religious fanatics finally assume complete control of America, at which point a move to Canada is best, since, as a mere liberal Christian and a bisexual, you'd be considered a double threat. For you, maybe Vancouver would be the best choice, as it is close to your home state of Washington, and I would probably move to Toronto (because it is apparently similar enough to Chicago for moviemakers to substitute for Chicago, and besides, if the draft finally comes around, I'd already go there anyway). Just for fun, since Kirov lives near the Border (to an extent), he could move to Winnipeg.
_________________
| Rev. Ted Haggard wrote: |
| If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant. |
| Eddie Murphy wrote: |
| I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis |
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Orwelliantherye; As Harmless as Kitchen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #48323
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-10-14 00:45
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| Ygeon wrote: |
I honestly see no point in this discussion at all. Homosexuality isn't right. It isn't wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with "morality" or "family values". It's not a threat to anything. It's just there.
Get the fuck over it. |
I agree... sortof. It's not a threat to anyone. While homosexuality isn't wrong, I do think it's okay. Is it right? Sure. But no more right than hetersexuality, or anymore wrong. The really only reason people honestly think it's wrong is because it's not natural, and doesn't result in procreation.
Well, too bad. I enjoy giving anal sex; there's nothing natural or procreative in that, so what's next? Ban gay sex, and then sodomy? Over my dead body. |
Of course, if one defines natural as "existing in nature", then homosexuality can be considered natural. Indeed, virtually every possible sexual behavior can be considered natural, since most types of perversions occur in nature, even necrophilia. Curiously, the only type of sexual behavior (outside of those which involve manmade items) that cannot be considered natural by the above definition is the one that many modern Christians believe should be an essential precursor to sex: Marriage. I have ranted about this in another thread, but I will say it again: Marriage is unnatural.
PS: About the banning gay sex, it happened before, but all existing laws about it have been overturned for four years as unconstitutional, so your right to assfuck is protected, at least until the religious fanatics finally assume complete control of America, at which point a move to Canada is best, since, as a mere liberal Christian and a bisexual, you'd be considered a double threat. For you, maybe Vancouver would be the best choice, as it is close to your home state of Washington, and I would probably move to Toronto (because it is apparently similar enough to Chicago for moviemakers to substitute for Chicago, and besides, if the draft finally comes around, I'd already go there anyway). Just for fun, since Kirov lives near the Border (to an extent), he could move to Winnipeg. |
Lolz, that's so true. It's a four-hour drive from Fargo doing 75, or three hours doing 90.
-Kirov
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #48324
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-10-14 00:57
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| Of course, if one defines natural as "existing in nature", then homosexuality can be considered natural. Indeed, virtually every possible sexual behavior can be considered natural, since most types of perversions occur in nature, even necrophilia. Curiously, the only type of sexual behavior (outside of those which involve manmade items) that cannot be considered natural by the above definition is the one that many modern Christians believe should be an essential precursor to sex: Marriage. I have ranted about this in another thread, but I will say it again: Marriage is unnatural. |
Nah, I meant as in, not equalling procreation. Being purely recreational. While I agree homosexuality isn't natural (I do know dolphins and apes and monkeys engage in it sometimes), that doesn't make it wrong. We weren't genetically programmed for the purpose of anal sex. It's just a fun thing to do. I am aware there were anti-sex laws, but I know they were rarely enforced, and when they were declared unconstitutional, was a good thing. I do know they're still on the books, but they're just not going to be enforced, unless people who are Christian zealots get their way in America.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orwelliantherye
Filthy Animal
Post #48325
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-10-14 00:59
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Nikolai Kirov wrote: |
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| For you, maybe Vancouver would be the best choice, as it is close to your home state of Washington, and I would probably move to Toronto (because it is apparently similar enough to Chicago for moviemakers to substitute for Chicago, and besides, if the draft finally comes around, I'd already go there anyway). Just for fun, since Kirov lives near the Border (to an extent), he could move to Winnipeg. |
Lolz, that's so true. It's a four-hour drive from Fargo doing 75, or three hours doing 90.
-Kirov |
So, that could work out well for you, and Mephi probably woundn't have to remember a new city name, since he would simply move from one Vancouver to the other. If I would move, it would take much more effort, since Skokie isn't as close to the Canadian border as Fargo and Vancouver, WA are, so I'd go to the Detroit-Windsor area first, and then go to Toronto.
_________________
| Rev. Ted Haggard wrote: |
| If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant. |
| Eddie Murphy wrote: |
| I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis |
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Orwelliantherye; As Harmless as Kitchen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #48326
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-10-14 01:10
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| Nikolai Kirov wrote: |
| orwelliantherye wrote: |
| For you, maybe Vancouver would be the best choice, as it is close to your home state of Washington, and I would probably move to Toronto (because it is apparently similar enough to Chicago for moviemakers to substitute for Chicago, and besides, if the draft finally comes around, I'd already go there anyway). Just for fun, since Kirov lives near the Border (to an extent), he could move to Winnipeg. |
Lolz, that's so true. It's a four-hour drive from Fargo doing 75, or three hours doing 90.
-Kirov |
So, that could work out well for you, and Mephi probably woundn't have to remember a new city name, since he would simply move from one Vancouver to the other. If I would move, it would take much more effort, since Skokie isn't as close to the Canadian border as Fargo and Vancouver, WA are, so I'd go to the Detroit-Windsor area first, and then go to Toronto. |
Or you could always do it like Lenin, take a train, hide in a field (we got lots of 'em), and re-emerge victorious and oddly refreshed.  To each their own :]
I wouldn't have to worry, but recently some dude died in Jamestown for being gay, so... I'm slightly worried. Plus I continually pester Byron Dorgan for equal rights (I get shrugged off, though). Who knows if the theocrat police are headed for an openly bisexual democratic socialist with a Soviet fetish the size of Kapustin Yar? >_> <_< Time will tell...
-Kirov
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chatspace
Prole
Post #59914
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Total Words: 180
Average words per post: 30
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2012-02-27 11:31
|
|
| Politics: I Believe what my Government tells me |
Country: United States |
|
| Live Sex |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Yeah, the points to those you have included are absolutely right from every way. It need a very hard labor to create this type of informative post. Thanks for this good work & also except more like this. Thanks....
sex chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chatspace
Prole
Post #59916
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Total Words: 180
Average words per post: 30
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2012-02-29 10:44
|
|
| Politics: I Believe what my Government tells me |
Country: United States |
|
| Chat Roulette |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I think it's totally against the law of nature. And the other thing is it may be the cause of very dangerous & incurable diseases.
live sex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chatspace
Prole
Post #59919
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Total Words: 180
Average words per post: 30
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2012-03-06 13:21
|
|
| Politics: I Believe what my Government tells me |
Country: United States |
|
| Sex Chat |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
It's the mother of all types of serious sexual diseases & also shame to humanity. The govt of every country around the world should provide hard punishment to these victims.
sex chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenlith
Prole
Post #59993
Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 504
Average words per post: 100.8
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2012-07-23 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
| What you fail to realise |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to enlighten you.
Taking a glance at this list will surely bring your thoughts up wether or not homosexuality is natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Obviously, a simple list over mammals displaying homosexual behavior.
Looking at the content, it isnt just humans displaying this behavior, and should not be regarded as unnatural, I mean the most natural animals on earth does it, why would it be a problem?
Not helping preserve the species? Well, if you hate homosexuals anyway, shouldnt that just be regarded as a good thing?
You seem to claim other perverts will claim they want to marry their subjects, but since it is illegal acts to pratice to most other kinds of sexuality (beastiality, Necrophillia, Pedophillia) this will never be the case, and the backup will simply not be around.
Oh, and did you know you CAN marry books and other objects in india? Yeah, they are ahead.
Oh on a side note, i read from a homosexual the reason he is gay is because its like having a really good friend you laugh and chat with, PLUS sex.
On a final note, it saves a few of the respective other gender for you, if you really dont see any other points in here.
- Zen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billee
Prole
Post #60023
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 47
Average words per post: 9.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2012-08-11 07:10
|
|
|
|
|
| Buy porn |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Thanks for this amazing post...
Cheap Escorts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billee
Prole
Post #60024
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 47
Average words per post: 9.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billee
Prole
Post #60025
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 47
Average words per post: 9.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billee
Prole
Post #60027
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 47
Average words per post: 9.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billee
Prole
Post #60028
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Total Words: 47
Average words per post: 9.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2012-08-24 07:42
|
|
|
|
|
| Buy Viagra |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
It's not totally wrong. I like it very much....
Buy porn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
