If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
Is that the same reason why the anus has a relatively high concentration of nerve endings and is an erogenous zone for both males and females?
That evolution really knew what it was doing, didn't it?
Disclaimer: This is just a question and not meant to start any sort of bashing.
Why do so many (NOT ALL) gay, lesbian, alternative lifestyle, or whatever the PC term is want to announce to the world that they are living that type of life style.
I will expand this to include anyone who feels they need to let the world know how they act and what they believe in an overt manner. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with you if you are homosexual, have pride in your race or religion, but do I really need to know about it?
Some people are just like that; they seek attention. Others want to promote a cause and spread awareness of what they go through.
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
I did pay attention, and I did read it. However I am not satisfied with the answer,in a way that I'm not convinced.
It is natural to get pleasure from sex, If homosexuals get pleasure from sex with males, how is that unnatural?
so men that find pleasure with dogs and horses are natural as well, ummmm......
you have a point, but there is one diffrence. Horses don't have sex for pleasure, humans do
sooooo, its only natural if you get pleasure from it? some seriel killers expressed that they got pleasure from killing their victims, does that make it natural? or does your referance only apply to sex? also, how do you know they dont get pleasure from it, why do they hump your leg then? it sure as hell isnt to reproduce.
The thing is, being a seriel killer IS natural. Being evil IS natural. Man doesn't naturaly becomes good, it holds diffrent factors. How I know they don't get pleasure from it? 1 thing: Evidence.
another thing, not related to the first part of my post but something that I think should also be taken in consideration:
"
Many species in nature have been observed as exhibiting homosexual behavior. In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood."
yeah, cause if animals do it we should to, right? so all the females should kill the males of the species right after sex, cause some insects do it?
My point was that we are not the only specie who shows signs of homosexuality.
and me point is that you cant use that arguement, because if you did, you would have to apply all the other things that animals do.
That doesn't make any sense. My point was that it happened among other species as well, I didn't say that we SHOULD do it because they do it.
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
Is that the same reason why the anus has a relatively high concentration of nerve endings and is an erogenous zone for both males and females?
That evolution really knew what it was doing, didn't it?
You taught me something new. And, as I said, I admit that it's an assumption.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
Wow, go take a biology course or something. Black skin is black because it contains high concentrations of melanin. This also means that you can't get sunburned. If Africans were white starting now, they would all be sunburned in 15 minutes and probably develop skin cancer within a few months. And if Europeans were black, well then....yeah.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
I did pay attention, and I did read it. However I am not satisfied with the answer,in a way that I'm not convinced.
It is natural to get pleasure from sex, If homosexuals get pleasure from sex with males, how is that unnatural?
so men that find pleasure with dogs and horses are natural as well, ummmm......
you have a point, but there is one diffrence. Horses don't have sex for pleasure, humans do
sooooo, its only natural if you get pleasure from it? some seriel killers expressed that they got pleasure from killing their victims, does that make it natural? or does your referance only apply to sex? also, how do you know they dont get pleasure from it, why do they hump your leg then? it sure as hell isnt to reproduce.
The thing is, being a seriel killer IS natural. Being evil IS natural. Man doesn't naturaly becomes good, it holds diffrent factors. How I know they don't get pleasure from it? 1 thing: Evidence.
wow, what can i say, youve painted yourself into a corner. if you believe that its a natural thing to kill another human being in cold blood, theres no point in continuing this convo with you. and as far as the Evidence that you speak of, care to share any of it, or are you just going to say, FACT 100 more times in your next post and expect us all to say, "ahhhh, yeah, i see it now," lol.
another thing, not related to the first part of my post but something that I think should also be taken in consideration:
"
Many species in nature have been observed as exhibiting homosexual behavior. In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood."
yeah, cause if animals do it we should to, right? so all the females should kill the males of the species right after sex, cause some insects do it?
My point was that we are not the only specie who shows signs of homosexuality.
and me point is that you cant use that arguement, because if you did, you would have to apply all the other things that animals do.
That doesn't make any sense. My point was that it happened among other species as well, I didn't say that we SHOULD do it because they do it.
most other animals dont drink from a glass, or drive a car, how is that relavent to us? not at all, you say? then why would your arguement be relavent to us? humans arent animals, animals arent humans. that is FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT.............FACT...........
Disclaimer: This is just a question and not meant to start any sort of bashing.
Why do so many (NOT ALL) gay, lesbian, alternative lifestyle, or whatever the PC term is want to announce to the world that they are living that type of life style.
I will expand this to include anyone who feels they need to let the world know how they act and what they believe in an overt manner. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with you if you are homosexual, have pride in your race or religion, but do I really need to know about it?
Some people are just like that; they seek attention. Others want to promote a cause and spread awareness of what they go through.
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.I have nothing left to say to you. If you really think skinheads beating and marauding is, in any way shape or form, a good thing, you are pretty much too far out there for me to even have a point of reference to discuss anything with you.
and if i do yell that? whats it to you, lol. i dont, but if i did? me personality is obvious, everyone else gets it, your the only one that doesnt seem to be with the program, eh? pacha? Actually, it seems I'm the only one that gets annoyed by people who pretend to be someone else. this should prolly tell you something about yourself.
and its not a matter of feeling the need to respect me, its a matter of harassing me at every chance you get in every thread i post in, thats blatant disrespect. up till now, ive been pretty tolerant of it, but im coming to the end of me patience with your constant badgering. frankly, i think that your a stupidass white BOY from a rich family. i think that your a homo yourself and thats why you feel so much hositility toward me and me opinion, i also think that youve had everything handed to you all your life and dont have any ideas of your own. youre prolly around 16-18 years old, flunking alot of your classes in high school because you spend too much time on the net and forums. and yes, you are definitely coming out looking like an ass that cant get a clue. and by definition, "being open to other peoples opinions" means that you dont critize their opinions and call them names at every chance you get. it also means you respect them and their rights to said opinions. you are, by definition, not open to other peoples opinion. thats your problem, not mine. in fact, im highly amused by how much of a dumbass you are proving yourself to be by continuely responding with dumbass comments that only a flippin retard would agree with. Because it is disrespect, what part of "I do not feel any need to show respect to you" did you not understand? I do not care if you lose your patience, Because I frown upon you and your constant need to put homosexuality in a bad daylight.A rich family? Handed everything your entire life? flunking classes? What in HEAVENS name does that have ANYTHING to do with this? Is this a JOKE? I am open to other people's opinions, UNLESS they are offensive, I criticize them. If you don't wish for other people to criticize, DO NOT POST IT ON A FORUM!. Want me to say it again? I look down upon you and your opinion about homosexuality, its simply DISGUSTING that you think its a disease. You think I'm a dumbass? Sir, you think Homosexuality is a disease even though its FACT that its not. Also, I'm not homo in any way or form. That is fact. Ofcourse, you never let facts stand in your way.
actually, the joke is that you dont get that i was doing exactly to you what you were doing and continue to do to me, lol. Oo and btw, ive been reading some of the other posts that have come into the thread since the start and i would have to agree, its not a desease in the traditional sense, its a disorder, i believe that i even cleared that up, but it doesnt fit in with your plan to bash me so you ignored it. gj. and just cause you say its FACT 50 times in the same post doesnt mean that its a fact, lol. last i checked you werent God, meaning you dont hold authority on FACT, lol. No you didn't sir, you did not point out that you changed your mind. Also, it has been proven by science.If there is evidence, its fact, simple like that. never said i changed me mind, this is an exact quote from me third post in this thread, "you cant catch depression either, but according to doctors, its a desease. mental disorder, whatever you wanna call it."
i did indeed change the way i referred to it. but you continued to say that i was calling it a desease. Yet your standpoint is still the same, as you proved here.
notice that no one else has a problem with me having me own opinion. no one else is posting about it, you cant let it go, your ego wont let you, lol. im posting for amusement. youre posting to prove me an idiot. and since youre failing, youll prolly say something stupid like, im just posting for the same reason you are, or some shit like that.
lastly, what are the norms, dumbass? someone has already pointed this out, there are no norms. you have nothing to base your blatant disrespect and childish behavior on, so you nitpick on me name, me personality, me writing style. anything else youd like to point out about me that proves that im stupid and not deserving of respect? God forbid that youd actually read me posts and respond to them, no, no, no, a thousand times no.....you gotta talk about me personality, sig, avatar, writing style, and/or name. thats way more important, lol, what a retard, IMHO. <----dont get offended, its just me opinion, lol. Your just a very sad little man who still is trying to put homosexuality in bad daylight while at the same time trying to get a fictional character to be your next personality. I think your retarded and you sir, should receive a good kick in the ass. and if that is truly your opinion, fine, youre entitled to it, dumbass, lol. And thats comming from a person who believes in all kind of magical things *rolleyes* dont remember ever saying that i believed in all kinds of magical things, lol. now your just being silly. Really? I thought you were religious?
Gameloading, normally your posts have some real sustanance. Now I really just want you to STFU. Your own arguments contradict eachother, plus your argument with PlanoMM is based on a flawed idea.
Let me explain.
You're complaining about PlanoMM having an opinion (which is his right) that offends people (though I see no reason for it to be offensive... I've never seen someone with cancer be offended to be told they have cancer... Diseases aren't insulting, they're medically based ideas. Having a disease doesn't make you anything less than anyone else). Yet you claim all religious people are clinically insane!!!!! And then that all religious people are silly!!!! Does that not strike you as 100% hypocritical?!?! If not, you need to re-evaluate... Well, life basically.
Now, your argument with PlanoMM fails on two counts. Firstly, that having a disease is NOT AN INSULTING TERM. I've never heard someone say "HAHAHAH! You F*CKING TARD! YOU HAVE LUNG CANCER!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!"... Having a disease is only bad medically (i.e. for your health), nothing else... And secondly... The fact that facts aren't facts. Nothing can be proven outright, and counter-evidence can always one day arrive and make us rewrite a 'law of science/nature' or a 'mathematical fact'. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are real. Even if from your perspective what is 'proven' is actually fact, that doesn't mean that it's not all been fixed to provide those results, or even that you're living in the Matrix. Get a f*cking clue! If you're gonna try and argue 'facts', you have to understand that NOTHING IS A FACT.
Now that we've got that out the way, how about you two quit arguing and agree to disagree? PLEASE!
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
Wow, go take a biology course or something. Black skin is black because it contains high concentrations of melanin. This also means that you can't get sunburned. If Africans were white starting now, they would all be sunburned in 15 minutes and probably develop skin cancer within a few months. And if Europeans were black, well then....yeah.It was not a great example, granted. But you are deliberately avoiding the point I made. Is evolution functioning in a logical manner? Or is it a series of random events? I'd love to hear you say evolution is a logical series of events. Then we'd know who needs to take a biology class.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
None of us can really say for a fact what's natural and not natural. This is your opinion, which you have admitted and I do as well on the subject of homosexuality. It's just like discussing what is right and wrong is. Owning slaves occurred for centuries and still does in some parts of the world. That was likely considered natural to many people. To you and I it certainly is not, but to others it was.
Now to discussing my opinion.
Evolution didn't dictate that sitting in front of a computer going back and forth on this subject was natural. It happened because one day we became curious about communication that would spread to the farthest reaches of the world. Thus the internet came to be. Another day we created a place where people could come together and discuss things because we were curious what others thought and would have to say on subjects just like this.
It's all opinion. But being curious is as natural as natural can be. Without curiosity we wouldn't have fire, electricity, or much of anything for that matter. So my point is couldn't you call homosexuality a product of that same natural curiosity?
Disclaimer: This is just a question and not meant to start any sort of bashing.
Why do so many (NOT ALL) gay, lesbian, alternative lifestyle, or whatever the PC term is want to announce to the world that they are living that type of life style.
I will expand this to include anyone who feels they need to let the world know how they act and what they believe in an overt manner. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with you if you are homosexual, have pride in your race or religion, but do I really need to know about it?
Some people are just like that; they seek attention. Others want to promote a cause and spread awareness of what they go through.
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.I have nothing left to say to you. If you really think skinheads beating and marauding is, in any way shape or form, a good thing, you are pretty much too far out there for me to even have a point of reference to discuss anything with you.
Really? That's too bad. See, I actually wouldn't have a conversation with someone who thinks that it is OK for gay parades to disrupt the routine daily workings of a city, except that I saw the tiniest hint of hostility towards my motherland.
And also, if you just take the core of the issue into account without bothering to consider the mitigating circumstances (also known as "selective hearing"), I'm afraid arguing with you is simply pointless, not to mention your certain ignorance in saying that if Africans were white they would be better suited to their environment.
Gameloading, normally your posts have some real sustanance. Now I really just want you to STFU. Your own arguments contradict eachother, plus your argument with PlanoMM is based on a flawed idea. Let me explain. You're complaining about PlanoMM having an opinion (which is his right) that offends people (though I see no reason for it to be offensive... I've never seen someone with cancer be offended to be told they have cancer... Diseases aren't insulting, they're medically based ideas. Having a disease doesn't make you anything less than anyone else). Yet you claim all religious people are clinically insane!!!!! And then that all religious people are silly!!!! Does that not strike you as 100% hypocritical?!?! If not, you need to re-evaluate... Well, life basically.
Now, your argument with PlanoMM fails on two counts. Firstly, that having a disease is NOT AN INSULTING TERM. I've never heard someone say "HAHAHAH! You F*CKING TARD! YOU HAVE LUNG CANCER!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!"... Having a disease is only bad medically (i.e. for your health), nothing else... And secondly... The fact that facts aren't facts. Nothing can be proven outright, and counter-evidence can always one day arrive and make us rewrite a 'law of science/nature' or a 'mathematical fact'. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are real. Even if from your perspective what is 'proven' is actually fact, that doesn't mean that it's not all been fixed to provide those results, or even that you're living in the Matrix. Get a f*cking clue! If you're gonna try and argue 'facts', you have to understand that NOTHING IS A FACT.
Now that we've got that out the way, how about you two quit arguing and agree to disagree? PLEASE!
agreed. im done with it. thanks Khuzarrz, ill stop arguing. i was more or less just enjoying his hypocricies, lol. but youre right, we should just stop.
but i do want to just say one more thing. this is a quote from a post that Gameloading wrote:
It seems you misunderstood, I will explain to you. What determines what makes a person "good" or "Evil" has many natural factors, the most well known, ofcourse, is the education of parents. if, by some event, parents teach children to be evil, then there is a chance that person will be evil. Serielkilling is merely a possible result of that.
now this is what i want to point out, you say that the education of parents can effect whether or not a child is evil. couldnt that same arguement be applied to homosexuality? you claim that being a serial killer is natural, just like homosexuality. if that is true, then it could also be argued that homosexuality is effected by the education of parents. btw, i dont believe either one is natural, but thats beside the point, lol. im just showing the circles that some of you are talking in.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
I hate to break it to you, but there isn't really all that much difference between homosexuality and the others. (I'm not bashing homesexuality or anything, just trying to bring something to the light). The only real differences are that homosexuality is more acceptable in our culture than banging a horse, and the people behind it are organized and trying to do something. I mean, sex exists for the race to mix up the line, and continue living. Regarding this, homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality. It seems drastically different, but that's only because how we've all been taught that bestiality is a horrible thing to do. Hell, give 'em a few decades and the organization, I'm sure at some point people'd make marriage with animals legal, too.
Except the fact that homosexuality exists within the same species and bestiality does not. Sorry, but fucking another human being that happens to be of the same sex as you and fucking your neighbor's dog are two very different things.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.
Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?
I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behind it to support my previous argument.
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?
I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behimd it to support my previous argument.Sigh. This will be the last post I make. But by saying that sex is for mixing up the line, and using that to state therefore homosexuality is deviant....ah forget it. If you don't see the lack of sense in what you say, I'm not going to bother. Have a good night.
Gameloading, normally your posts have some real sustanance. Now I really just want you to STFU. Your own arguments contradict eachother, plus your argument with PlanoMM is based on a flawed idea. Let me explain. You're complaining about PlanoMM having an opinion (which is his right) that offends people (though I see no reason for it to be offensive... I've never seen someone with cancer be offended to be told they have cancer... Diseases aren't insulting, they're medically based ideas. Having a disease doesn't make you anything less than anyone else). Yet you claim all religious people are clinically insane!!!!! And then that all religious people are silly!!!! Does that not strike you as 100% hypocritical?!?! If not, you need to re-evaluate... Well, life basically. Cancer and homosexuality are two complete diffrent things. If I would be a homosexual, I would take offense if someone said I was ill when its not a disease. Thats like saying someone who likes bungee jumping is ill because its not what other people like. I would personally take offense in that. I indeed think religious people are silly. To believe in something without a shred of evidence is in my eyes just plain silly.
People who like bungee jumping are not ill. But they do have a mental condition. It's called Thrill Seeking. Their mind needs LOTS of stimulation, such as a bungee jump or sky dive, to get the same release of adrenaline and endorphins that someone who was not a thrill seeker would get from something more simple like playing a computer game. This is the point I'm making. Noone would take offense at being told they have a mental condition which gives them a thrill seeking personality; you immediately assume though that a homosexual person would take offense at being told that the part of their brain that deals with sexual impulses requires those stimuli to come from someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex for it to be pleasurable. Being right handed or left handed is also a mental condition. This is what you clearly don't understand. 'Mental condition' is used to describe any facet of the brain that works differently to that which another person possesses. And you're arguing because you said he's allowed his opinion UNLESS it causes offense, but yet, you're allowed your opinion despite that it offends the very vast majority of humans on the planet??? How the f*ck does that work?? And there is evidence for their beliefs btw. It comes in the fact that there is no other explanation for such things as the creation of the world and the 'Sacred Ratio' (or whatever you like to call it). Also it comes in the eye-witness testimonys to evidence of religious significance (eye-witness testimony is evidence... And to an extent, is proof also, as otherwise your so-called 'facts' based on other people's studies are false by definition because they are based on eye-witness testimony). And there is also evidence surfacing now that it is a NATURAL PART OF THE HUMAN BRAIN (same as being gay or straight) to have faith in God/a greater being. It's by no means conclusive, but it's still there to an extent. Point is, please stop being hypocritical. Now, your argument with PlanoMM fails on two counts. Firstly, that having a disease is NOT AN INSULTING TERM. I've never heard someone say "HAHAHAH! You F*CKING TARD! YOU HAVE LUNG CANCER!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!"... Having a disease is only bad medically (i.e. for your health), nothing else... And secondly... The fact that facts aren't facts. Nothing can be proven outright, and counter-evidence can always one day arrive and make us rewrite a 'law of science/nature' or a 'mathematical fact'. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are real. Even if from your perspective what is 'proven' is actually fact, that doesn't mean that it's not all been fixed to provide those results, or even that you're living in the Matrix. Get a f*cking clue! If you're gonna try and argue 'facts', you have to understand that NOTHING IS A FACT.
I explained the first part of the second part of your post above. Counter evidence indeed can arrive, its a possibility. Yet its very slim, and there is very evidence right now, enough to claim it as a fact. A lack of counter-evidence does not make something fact. Everything is forever theoretical, and imho nothing should ever be expressed as fact outside of mathematics and semantics. When Steven Hawkin published his theory on Black Holes breaking the laws of Thermodynamics, all of his mathematics and science stood up to total scrutiny and were infallable. It was still a theory however, it wasn't fact just because noone could disprove it at the time. Since then, based on the quarrel over the laws of information conservation, his new theory on Multi-verses has been published, which is a counter-theory to that of his first theory. Neither are facts though, even though neither can be disproved mathematically, and noone voices them as fact either.
Now that we've got that out the way, how about you two quit arguing and agree to disagree? PLEASE!
Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?
I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behimd it to support my previous argument.Sigh. This will be the last post I make. But by saying that sex is for mixing up the line, and using that to state therefore homosexuality is deviant....ah forget it. If you don't see the lack of sense in what you say, I'm not going to bother. Have a good night.
You're mixing two separate arguments. Homosexuality is deviant merely because it follows the definition of deviant.
Gameloading, normally your posts have some real sustanance. Now I really just want you to STFU. Your own arguments contradict eachother, plus your argument with PlanoMM is based on a flawed idea. Let me explain. You're complaining about PlanoMM having an opinion (which is his right) that offends people (though I see no reason for it to be offensive... I've never seen someone with cancer be offended to be told they have cancer... Diseases aren't insulting, they're medically based ideas. Having a disease doesn't make you anything less than anyone else). Yet you claim all religious people are clinically insane!!!!! And then that all religious people are silly!!!! Does that not strike you as 100% hypocritical?!?! If not, you need to re-evaluate... Well, life basically.
Now, your argument with PlanoMM fails on two counts. Firstly, that having a disease is NOT AN INSULTING TERM. I've never heard someone say "HAHAHAH! You F*CKING TARD! YOU HAVE LUNG CANCER!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!"... Having a disease is only bad medically (i.e. for your health), nothing else... And secondly... The fact that facts aren't facts. Nothing can be proven outright, and counter-evidence can always one day arrive and make us rewrite a 'law of science/nature' or a 'mathematical fact'. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are real. Even if from your perspective what is 'proven' is actually fact, that doesn't mean that it's not all been fixed to provide those results, or even that you're living in the Matrix. Get a f*cking clue! If you're gonna try and argue 'facts', you have to understand that NOTHING IS A FACT.
Now that we've got that out the way, how about you two quit arguing and agree to disagree? PLEASE!
agreed. im done with it. thanks Khuzarrz, ill stop arguing. i was more or less just enjoying his hypocricies, lol. but youre right, we should just stop.
but i do want to just say one more thing. this is a quote from a post that Gameloading wrote:
It seems you misunderstood, I will explain to you. What determines what makes a person "good" or "Evil" has many natural factors, the most well known, ofcourse, is the education of parents. if, by some event, parents teach children to be evil, then there is a chance that person will be evil. Serielkilling is merely a possible result of that.
now this is what i want to point out, you say that the education of parents can effect whether or not a child is evil. couldnt that same arguement be applied to homosexuality? you claim that being a serial killer is natural, just like homosexuality. if that is true, then it could also be argued that homosexuality is effected by the education of parents. btw, i dont believe either one is natural, but thats beside the point, lol. im just showing the circles that some of you are talking in.
Homosexuality is a complex thing. It is not fully proven yet, and its still being researched. However scientists overal agree that There are multiple things comming into it what determines a person a homosexual or not. There are a few, but the ones I remember are: Biological (genes), and enviromental. So I think that means that education also has something to do it but exactly How, or why, nobody knows yet, but I do not believe it is the one determing factor.
but, but.....you said it was FACT, remember, its FACT. FAAAAACCCCCTTTTTTT! lol, sorry i had to do it. im done now, i wont bother about it anymore.
Comments
That evolution really knew what it was doing, didn't it?
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
I did pay attention, and I did read it. However I am not satisfied with the answer,in a way that I'm not convinced.
It is natural to get pleasure from sex, If homosexuals get pleasure from sex with males, how is that unnatural?
so men that find pleasure with dogs and horses are natural as well, ummmm......
you have a point, but there is one diffrence. Horses don't have sex for pleasure, humans do
sooooo, its only natural if you get pleasure from it? some seriel killers expressed that they got pleasure from killing their victims, does that make it natural? or does your referance only apply to sex? also, how do you know they dont get pleasure from it, why do they hump your leg then? it sure as hell isnt to reproduce.
The thing is, being a seriel killer IS natural. Being evil IS natural. Man doesn't naturaly becomes good, it holds diffrent factors. How I know they don't get pleasure from it? 1 thing: Evidence.
another thing, not related to the first part of my post but something that I think should also be taken in consideration:
"
Many species in nature have been observed as exhibiting homosexual behavior. In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood."
yeah, cause if animals do it we should to, right? so all the females should kill the males of the species right after sex, cause some insects do it?
My point was that we are not the only specie who shows signs of homosexuality.
and me point is that you cant use that arguement, because if you did, you would have to apply all the other things that animals do.
That doesn't make any sense. My point was that it happened among other species as well, I didn't say that we SHOULD do it because they do it.
That evolution really knew what it was doing, didn't it?
You taught me something new. And, as I said, I admit that it's an assumption.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
Wow, go take a biology course or something. Black skin is black because it contains high concentrations of melanin. This also means that you can't get sunburned. If Africans were white starting now, they would all be sunburned in 15 minutes and probably develop skin cancer within a few months. And if Europeans were black, well then....yeah.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
I did pay attention, and I did read it. However I am not satisfied with the answer,in a way that I'm not convinced.
It is natural to get pleasure from sex, If homosexuals get pleasure from sex with males, how is that unnatural?
so men that find pleasure with dogs and horses are natural as well, ummmm......
you have a point, but there is one diffrence. Horses don't have sex for pleasure, humans do
sooooo, its only natural if you get pleasure from it? some seriel killers expressed that they got pleasure from killing their victims, does that make it natural? or does your referance only apply to sex? also, how do you know they dont get pleasure from it, why do they hump your leg then? it sure as hell isnt to reproduce.
The thing is, being a seriel killer IS natural. Being evil IS natural. Man doesn't naturaly becomes good, it holds diffrent factors. How I know they don't get pleasure from it? 1 thing: Evidence.
wow, what can i say, youve painted yourself into a corner. if you believe that its a natural thing to kill another human being in cold blood, theres no point in continuing this convo with you. and as far as the Evidence that you speak of, care to share any of it, or are you just going to say, FACT 100 more times in your next post and expect us all to say, "ahhhh, yeah, i see it now," lol.
another thing, not related to the first part of my post but something that I think should also be taken in consideration:
"
Many species in nature have been observed as exhibiting homosexual behavior. In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood."
yeah, cause if animals do it we should to, right? so all the females should kill the males of the species right after sex, cause some insects do it?
My point was that we are not the only specie who shows signs of homosexuality.
and me point is that you cant use that arguement, because if you did, you would have to apply all the other things that animals do.
That doesn't make any sense. My point was that it happened among other species as well, I didn't say that we SHOULD do it because they do it.
most other animals dont drink from a glass, or drive a car, how is that relavent to us? not at all, you say? then why would your arguement be relavent to us? humans arent animals, animals arent humans. that is FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT.............FACT...........
oO yeah, FACT, lol.
______________________________
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.I have nothing left to say to you. If you really think skinheads beating and marauding is, in any way shape or form, a good thing, you are pretty much too far out there for me to even have a point of reference to discuss anything with you.
Gameloading, normally your posts have some real sustanance. Now I really just want you to STFU. Your own arguments contradict eachother, plus your argument with PlanoMM is based on a flawed idea.
Let me explain.
You're complaining about PlanoMM having an opinion (which is his right) that offends people (though I see no reason for it to be offensive... I've never seen someone with cancer be offended to be told they have cancer... Diseases aren't insulting, they're medically based ideas. Having a disease doesn't make you anything less than anyone else). Yet you claim all religious people are clinically insane!!!!! And then that all religious people are silly!!!! Does that not strike you as 100% hypocritical?!?! If not, you need to re-evaluate... Well, life basically.
Now, your argument with PlanoMM fails on two counts. Firstly, that having a disease is NOT AN INSULTING TERM. I've never heard someone say "HAHAHAH! You F*CKING TARD! YOU HAVE LUNG CANCER!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!"... Having a disease is only bad medically (i.e. for your health), nothing else... And secondly... The fact that facts aren't facts. Nothing can be proven outright, and counter-evidence can always one day arrive and make us rewrite a 'law of science/nature' or a 'mathematical fact'. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are real. Even if from your perspective what is 'proven' is actually fact, that doesn't mean that it's not all been fixed to provide those results, or even that you're living in the Matrix. Get a f*cking clue! If you're gonna try and argue 'facts', you have to understand that NOTHING IS A FACT.
Now that we've got that out the way, how about you two quit arguing and agree to disagree? PLEASE!
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
Wow, go take a biology course or something. Black skin is black because it contains high concentrations of melanin. This also means that you can't get sunburned. If Africans were white starting now, they would all be sunburned in 15 minutes and probably develop skin cancer within a few months. And if Europeans were black, well then....yeah.It was not a great example, granted. But you are deliberately avoiding the point I made. Is evolution functioning in a logical manner? Or is it a series of random events? I'd love to hear you say evolution is a logical series of events. Then we'd know who needs to take a biology class.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?
Now to discussing my opinion.
Evolution didn't dictate that sitting in front of a computer going back and forth on this subject was natural. It happened because one day we became curious about communication that would spread to the farthest reaches of the world. Thus the internet came to be. Another day we created a place where people could come together and discuss things because we were curious what others thought and would have to say on subjects just like this.
It's all opinion. But being curious is as natural as natural can be. Without curiosity we wouldn't have fire, electricity, or much of anything for that matter. So my point is couldn't you call homosexuality a product of that same natural curiosity?
But is it worth causing a parade to disconvienience others? NO. Learn OTHER forms of getting to people. Actually, I'd be happy if they STFU altogether. Christmas parades are allright in NA because most of the population is Christian and would therefore appreciate such a celebration. Gay parades reach out to a few, inconvenience everyone, and some people are downright scared of gays. They should not be allowed to take place.
To back that, in Europe recently, an attempt at a gay parade was shut down as a bunch of skinheads tore the place up and gangbeat a few of the would-be participants. (This parade was illegal as all applications for an official one had been turned down).
No one wants to know about random people's sexual preferences. Not only does it bring downright nasty images to mind for most people, it also inconveniences everyone.
Putting race and religion aside (as that's something to actually be proud of, no matter what race or religion you are), no, we don't need to know, and we don't want to know, so stfu before we throw off your wussy little parades that appeal to pre-pubescent girls obsessed with yaoi and gay little boys.
The parade you are referring to was in Russia. Are you saying we in the West need to be more like Russia?
I'm Russian and was in Russia visiting relatives when it happened. No, nowhere have I said that the West needs to be more like Russia, I am personally of the opinion that Russia needs to be more like the West.
The point of my thread was to show that people do not like being inconvenienced over bullshit. Would YOU like to plan an alternative route to class (or work) and waste your valuable time because of a gay parade? I know that I wouldn't. We don't need to know, I restate it again.ROFL...I'm sorry you had to plan a new route to work. Hope the skinheads don't kill too many gays this year. But as long as you get to work on time, I guess it'll be OK.
That's correct. From my knowledge, no one was killed (this year). To maintain order in society requires all aspects of it functioning properly, ie people getting to work on time, not having to chase after gays with clubs and other heavy objects, etc. An illegal activity that would disrupt this (the parade) cannot be allowed to proceed, the police force would have stopped them anyways. It's actually better that the skinheads did it first, to make an example and discourage others from starting any subsequent demonstrations.I have nothing left to say to you. If you really think skinheads beating and marauding is, in any way shape or form, a good thing, you are pretty much too far out there for me to even have a point of reference to discuss anything with you.
Really? That's too bad. See, I actually wouldn't have a conversation with someone who thinks that it is OK for gay parades to disrupt the routine daily workings of a city, except that I saw the tiniest hint of hostility towards my motherland.
And also, if you just take the core of the issue into account without bothering to consider the mitigating circumstances (also known as "selective hearing"), I'm afraid arguing with you is simply pointless, not to mention your certain ignorance in saying that if Africans were white they would be better suited to their environment.
I bid you good day.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
agreed. im done with it. thanks Khuzarrz, ill stop arguing. i was more or less just enjoying his hypocricies, lol. but youre right, we should just stop.
but i do want to just say one more thing. this is a quote from a post that Gameloading wrote:
It seems you misunderstood, I will explain to you. What determines what makes a person "good" or "Evil" has many natural factors, the most well known, ofcourse, is the education of parents. if, by some event, parents teach children to be evil, then there is a chance that person will be evil. Serielkilling is merely a possible result of that.
now this is what i want to point out, you say that the education of parents can effect whether or not a child is evil. couldnt that same arguement be applied to homosexuality? you claim that being a serial killer is natural, just like homosexuality. if that is true, then it could also be argued that homosexuality is effected by the education of parents. btw, i dont believe either one is natural, but thats beside the point, lol. im just showing the circles that some of you are talking in.
______________________________
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
I would tend to disagree. While I don't put homosexuals on the same level as people who practice beastiality, both of them clearly go against what one could easily see is intended by nature. Just because homosexuality exists within the same species doesn't mean that it doesn't go against nature.
Yes, I'm saying that homosexuality is unnatural. You won't find me jumping onto the "God hates gays" bandwagon, because those people are morons. BUT, from both an evolutionary, and religious standpoint, homosexuality is unnatural. If you think that I need to explain why, then ask your parents to buy you a book on human anatomy...and then buy a book about natural selection.
I disagree with that. There is much more to sex then just producing babies. Pleasure, for example. or love. It only goes against one part of nature, and thats having babies.Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation
If you were paying attention, I already addressed the fact that we get pleasure out of it because of the fact that it prolongs our lineage. Evolution put those nerve endings there for a reason.
So...you know all the ins and outs of evolution? You know what the purpose of all the nerves and organs are? What's the appendix for? Why do we have so much more brain than we actually use? Why are some people black and some white? What's the purpose of blue eyes versus brown eyes?
Point being, don't presume to use "homsexuality is not evolutionarily compatible" until you are ready to explain exactly why it is not. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that are not understood. Homosexuality may have had purposes we haven't figured out. Maybe not. Maybe it was a dead end. Who knows. I don't and you for damn sure don't either.
I concede to not knowing this for a fact, but I belong to the school of logic, and, although it can't be proven without being omniprescient, it is a logical assumption. If you come up with a better reason, let me know.
It's not a logical assumption at all. If evolution functioned in some logical way, why are blacks indigenous to the hottest lands on Earth? Light skin reflects sunlight better, and would therefore be a better way to stay cool in hot areas. Dark skin would be better at absorbing heat, meaning all those blond Scandinavian babes would be black as coal to retain heat in their freezing countries.
Stop making up fake scientific reasons to support your homophobia. Scientists, psychologists, all those people with Ph.D.s pretty much agree that homosexuality is as natural as skin color. If you want to dislike gays, that's fine. Your prerogative. But don't make up sh** to try and make your bigotry sound logical.
I haven't once pointed to being a homophobe, and have stated I am not. And your argument confuses me. You say my assumption is not logical, but then you go on and say evolution isn't logical, so if I'm wrong making a logical assumption about something that behaves illogicaly, I understand. But if I made an illogical assumption about an illogical working, wouln't I be right?Simple answer is no. Put simply, you are the one claiming that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary. You say it is anti-evolutionary because being unable to procreate is illogical. I pointed out that evolution is not a logical process therefore, logically, one cannot apply logical reasoning to an illogical process. Did that help?I never said it was "anti-evolutionary". I merely said it was deviant. And I also never said "being able to procreate is illogical". I hate it when people try to twist what I say to fit their argument. I wasn't even arguing the point you're trying to argue with me.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behind it to support my previous argument.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behimd it to support my previous argument.Sigh. This will be the last post I make. But by saying that sex is for mixing up the line, and using that to state therefore homosexuality is deviant....ah forget it. If you don't see the lack of sense in what you say, I'm not going to bother. Have a good night.
Hmm. Where you not the one that stated "sex exists for the race to mix up the line"? That looks to me like you are saying sex is for procreation and to promote evolutionary changes. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies. But I would be curious to know what you did mean. Again, sex is more complex both evolutionarily and on an individual level than you give it credit for.
Yes, you caught the meaning, but still somehow managed to draw something else entirely. And, honestly, I've losted what you're arguing with me over. And yes, I know sex is complex. I merely stated a simple idea behimd it to support my previous argument.Sigh. This will be the last post I make. But by saying that sex is for mixing up the line, and using that to state therefore homosexuality is deviant....ah forget it. If you don't see the lack of sense in what you say, I'm not going to bother. Have a good night.
You're mixing two separate arguments. Homosexuality is deviant merely because it follows the definition of deviant.
agreed. im done with it. thanks Khuzarrz, ill stop arguing. i was more or less just enjoying his hypocricies, lol. but youre right, we should just stop.
but i do want to just say one more thing. this is a quote from a post that Gameloading wrote:
It seems you misunderstood, I will explain to you. What determines what makes a person "good" or "Evil" has many natural factors, the most well known, ofcourse, is the education of parents. if, by some event, parents teach children to be evil, then there is a chance that person will be evil. Serielkilling is merely a possible result of that.
now this is what i want to point out, you say that the education of parents can effect whether or not a child is evil. couldnt that same arguement be applied to homosexuality? you claim that being a serial killer is natural, just like homosexuality. if that is true, then it could also be argued that homosexuality is effected by the education of parents. btw, i dont believe either one is natural, but thats beside the point, lol. im just showing the circles that some of you are talking in.
Homosexuality is a complex thing. It is not fully proven yet, and its still being researched. However scientists overal agree that There are multiple things comming into it what determines a person a homosexual or not. There are a few, but the ones I remember are: Biological (genes), and enviromental. So I think that means that education also has something to do it but exactly How, or why, nobody knows yet, but I do not believe it is the one determing factor.
but, but.....you said it was FACT, remember, its FACT. FAAAAACCCCCTTTTTTT! lol, sorry i had to do it. im done now, i wont bother about it anymore.
______________________________
