im a white straight Christian, im going to start a parade. anyone have an objection to that?
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost.
I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one.
im a white straight Christian, im going to start a parade. anyone have an objection to that?
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost.
I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one.
and you know what. If you wanted be a white supremacist - then that is your right. As long as you're not dragging black people around by the bumper of your car.
Originally posted by pb1285n Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by pb1285n Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by pb1285n Originally posted by PlanoMM im a white straight Christian, im going to start a parade. anyone have an objection to that?
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost. I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one. and you know what. If you wanted be a white supremacist - then that is your right. As long as you're not dragging black people around by the bumper of your car.
We don't discriminate. Every non-white non-protestant and homo has a chance of being dragged from my bumper.
I never understand why people get so worked up over these topics? Who cares what gay people are doing? Who cares what anyone is doing? Do you think it's gross? Great, but why does that give you a right to deny them their feelings? I think it's gross that people eat squid but I'm not going to tell them they can't eat it. That's the problem with this world, people spend too much of their time and energy telling other people what they can and can't do. I say WHO CARES! If doesn't change my life or the way I live so why should I care? If someone wanted to marry their horse by all means let them do it. I doesn't matter, it's not my business what these people do with each other. If they want to get married let them get married. It doesn't make your marriage any less valid. If it's against your religion, it doesn't mean you have to approve of it. You just have to tolerarte it. Not everyone has your belief, and not everyone is going to approve of your lifestyle. We all just have to be civil with each other, that doesn't mean we have to like each other. If you don't like pride parades, ignore them! I don't care if you're Irish, Spanish, Black, Italian, Chinese, Greek or gay - march all you want.
But, why do they have to distrupt people and publically say theyre gay? like what you said about people who like squid. but, They dont go around screaming throughout teh restaurant "I love squid! I love squid!!" They simply order it and eat it.
What's funny is I have never heard about or seen a gay pride parade and I live in New York. The only way you'll really hear about it is if you go out of your way to look for it. It seems every day there is another parade for something, and if someone wants to be proud of who they are whether it be Hispanic, Jewish, Chinese or Irish then by all means go ahead and march. It happens once a year - for me that isn't a big deal.
The only parade that drives me crazy is that damn Thanksgiving Day parade - the entire city has to shut down for it.
Oddly enough, we've had more neo nazi parades around my area than gay pride. In fact I don't think we've had any gay pride parades at all, but in VA there have been quite a few neo nazi rallies/parades. They walk down the streets and disrupt everything, even more so than a gay parade since their goal is to cause some sort of riot. I think they even caused one riot fairly recently, which was on the news.
I think because they want to be considered a legitimate members of the society. They have started to take flight. They have gone out of the closet and now they want sheer equality.
That's what I don't like about some gays. It's not what they do in the bedroom(it's really non of my buisness), but it's that they have to be so in your face about it, and when you express discomfort about it being like that, you're a homophobe neo-nazi prejudistic bastard.
Society doesn't give them equal rights. Heterosexuals don't need to go public with their sexuality because society accepts their lifestyle. When homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated the same, you can bitch about their parades.
I don't care what people do with their own time, i care when it affects my time, from my upbringing, homosexuality is a taboo but currenty, i'm like who the hell gives a damn. I wonder about homosexuality myself.
People say it's as natural as skin color which would mean it would have a genetic component, which is plausible but can easily be criticized. I wonder when you see these porn stars have no problems with lesbo sex, when inmates screw each other and what not. I think that people's mentality can change the way they think and act if they tried hard enough.
In all honesty, If I wasn't brought up the way I was, i'd probably experiment myself. I'm perhaps a few rationalizations away. I know that I'm attracted to chicks, that's my default setting, but it wouldn't be that difficult for me to think about being attracted to guys either, i guess you'd call it toggling that specific setting, I think people are able to toggle it to some degree. I know i sound like i'm fucked up, but I'm just being honest with myself.
Anyway, I agree with the person who said it's about perception, we percieve it when a gay person says X or Y that they're shoving it down our face, when we have no problems, saying "OMG look at HER RACK or ASS". It's all a matter of perception.
Also, is it just me, or are african-americans the most flamboyant of homosexuals. Of all the homosexuals I've ever seen in my life, I find African-Americans to be the most ostentatious of the group. Oh well . Perhaps in african-american sub-culture, it's a greater stigma.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
My take on it is 99.9% of the populaiton dont give a monkeys about peoples sexual orientation but i also agree that those of a non heterosexual persuasion certainly bang on about it alot more than people want to here. Thats what gets my goat up.
My other beef is when charity money like the lottery fund gets spent on groups organing parades or spent on legal fees for different gay groups when there are baby hospices struggling for funding.
I shall put my soap box away now
Greatness is difficult to appreciate from close up. The great mountain on the horizon is only the ground when you are standing on it.
do you know what one of the worse things you can do (in my opinion anyway) put yourself in a box. it takes a moment to fall into and a lifetime to climb out of, plus its so small in there.
if anyone ever thinks about any thing i say then please let it be this: dont let what you do become what you are. live, love, and learn.
To a gay person (and many straight people) , the idea of having sex with the same sex doesn't seem un-natural at all. But why do they have to have a parade?
What if my "thang" was small animals, rodents or horses. Could I round up a group and insist we get a "beastiality day parade"?
where does it end?
No but you could start a band and name it The Petshop Boys
(For the uneducated Petshop Boy is a term used for those who use Gerbils in... lets just say an unconventional manner)
As to the announcements being an old metalhead/punk rocker I'm use to it. Back in the 80's it was only the gay clubs in a lot of areas that would host punk shows, punkers were usually attacked by different groups for the high offense of thinking for themselves instead of letting the media masters lead them by their nose. I just wear a button that says "Please Don't Feed or Tease the Straight People"
Us straight people would need far too many parades, there's be the "I Only Did It Once But Act Like I'm a Pro Parade" the "No Fat Chicks Parade" the "Only Fat Chicks Parade" the "I'll @#$% Anything That's Almost Passed Out Drunk Parade" the "I'm Saving Myself For the Supermodel Who Won't Even Look at Me Parade" the "Ehhh You'll Do Parade" the "Her Husband's Out of Town Parade" and a host of others.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
they're trying to pressure the public to accepting their lifestyle as "normal" when it is in fact "Not". If someone presses the issue long enough, soon people will begin to not care anymore, and the young kids nowdays when they are old, and have their kids, they will be more common and accepted cause it has become so widely expressed by the homosexuals. I am sure that we will probably see the day when preachers and pastors will not be able to get in their pulpits and say homosexuality is wrong because of "Hate Speech" the homosexual community is already trying to get laws like they do in canada concerning this issue. If you listen to some of the most popular homosexuals in hollywood/entertainment industry they're aim is directly targeted at religions that don't accept homosexuality as normal but immoral. just like elton john said that "all religion should be banned" or rosie o'donnell's statements that "radical christianity is just as threatening as radical islam in a country like america" This country was founded on christianity, christianity is woven throughout our government and the pure essence of our establishment is on God the Father his son Jesus the Holy Spirit and his Holy written word.
I think its absolutely absurd what a few people are trying to say that "it happens in a few species of animals" so it must be ok for us and is perfectly natural. There are many things that happen naturally that are not acceptable to humans. You know many animals actually kill thier rivals or others in their society for various reasons. Heck I was watching Meerkat Manor and the Lead Meerkat will kill the pups of her daughters because they are not allowed to mate.
So because killing is accepted in animals, I suppose that should be perfectly fine for humans. Heck killing in humans has been happening in our own species, so there you have it. Murder should be perfectly fine, RIGHT? I really wonder whats the next social agenda going to be. No more prisons or prisoners? Oooh poor charles manson he was going through a rough time in his life. Nobody deserves that. Whether your religous or not, its pretty hard not to agree that as they destroy religion, so goes the laws that were based on religion.
Without religion I can see they are going to call into question ever single commandment. If there is not "God" then who's to say theft and murder are wrong? Maybe those are really what everyone should be doing, and not killing is actually the real sin? Talk about Chaos.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Errr.... please tell me (besides "scientists" from "Focus on the family") which scientists and psychologists said anything against homosexuality, homosexuality was taken out of the disorder lists in the 70's, and as for comparing homosexuality with bestiality always the same retoric used and even if people answer it with "bestiality doesnt include 2 willing partners" it doesnt seem to put you off.
And with your "sterile part" in your argument, are you actually saying that sterile people should not be allowed to have children since nature made them sterile?...
Please stop making pointless posts that have been answered time and again...
Oh and for the biological part of being homosexual, here is 2 studies that strongly supporte the biological factor of the sexual orientation, can you show me 2 studies supporting homosexuality as a choice? no? i thought so.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Errr.... please tell me (besides "scientists" from "Focus on the family") which scientists and psychologists said anything against homosexuality, homosexuality was taken out of the disorder lists in the 70's, and as for comparing homosexuality with bestiality always the same retoric used and even if people answer it with "bestiality doesnt include 2 willing partners" it doesnt seem to put you off.
you do realize that when a man or woman has sex with an animal, sometimes the animal is indeed willing. e.g. dog humping your leg, maybe hes just scratching his penis, lol.
And with your "sterile part" in your argument, are you actually saying that sterile people should not be allowed to have children since nature made them sterile?...
hes not talking about people that are sterile because of desease or mutation or whatever. hes saying that when two animals of different species mate, their offspring is always, always sterile. e.g. liger
Please stop making pointless posts that have been answered time and again...
Oh and for the biological part of being homosexual, here is 2 studies that strongly supporte the biological factor of the sexual orientation, can you show me 2 studies supporting homosexuality as a choice? no? i thought so.
It's really simple why gay pride parades exist and straight, white, Christian male parades don't. Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian. Gay pride and the expression of gay pride exists because gays need to validate their own existence in a world that has marginalized them since the beginning of history. People don't have a "I love food" parade just because they love food, but if you haven't eaten anything for a month (and you lived), you would likely want to proclaim your love of food for those around you.
The people who criticize gays for being vocal about their sexual orientation need to seriously examine their own lives and the advantages they have over most of the rest of country and the world- they're probably white, which means they don't know much about how racism affects American society in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, they're obviously straight, so they have no idea at all what it's like to be stigmatized by society for being they way they were born. Consider for a moment that you were born differently and don't have all of the advantages that you're unaware that you have, and you be a step closer to understanding.
And also, it's not as if the gay community is one entity in its beliefs and actions. For every flamboyant, leather-clad one you see marching in a parade, another is just quietly living his/her life and trying to stay away from trouble. The gay community internally is diverse as any other.
It's really simple why gay pride parades exist and straight, white, Christian male parades don't. Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian. Gay pride and the expression of gay pride exists because gays need to validate their own existence in a world that has marginalized them since the beginning of history. People don't have a "I love food" parade just because they love food, but if you haven't eaten anything for a month (and you lived), you would likely want to proclaim your love of food for those around you. The people who criticize gays for being vocal about their sexual orientation need to seriously examine their own lives and the advantages they have over most of the rest of country and the world- they're probably white, which means they don't know much about how racism affects American society in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, you had me all the way till you said this. this is a stereotype, and it just happens to be false. knowing much about how racism affects and experiencing it are two different things. no, ive never experienced what a black person might experience (being black), but that doesnt automaticly make me ignorant. and just to clarify, weve had this discussion on this board before, blacks now days dont experience the hardships that they might have 50 years ago. so this isnt even part of the issue. they're obviously straight, so they have no idea at all what it's like to be stigmatized by society for being they way they were born. yeah, cause society only stigmatizes gays, right? lol, sorry, invalid arguement. and again, knowing something and experiencing it are two different things. Oo and i have to throw this in here, Lilth says that she wasnt born gay and that no gay is born with it, whos right? are people born gay or do they turn gay? if you say that they are born with it, youre calling a gay person a lier. if you say that they arent born with it, youre contradicting yourself. and if you say both, youre just covering all your bases. what a pickle. im sure youll figure out a way out of it though. Consider for a moment that you were born differently and don't have all of the advantages that you're unaware that you have, and you be a step closer to understanding. And also, it's not as if the gay community is one entity in its beliefs and actions. For every flamboyant, leather-clad one you see marching in a parade, another is just quietly living his/her life and trying to stay away from trouble. The gay community internally is diverse as any other. and one last point id like to make. throwing a parade to celebrate gay pride doesnt make me want to honor them or support them. so how, praytell, is it productive? youve no doubt read the other posters opinion on this, most straight people dont support the parade and such, so who exactly are they trying to reach with this behavior? Answer: other gay people. they arent doing it to get equal rights, theyre doing it to let other gays know its alright to be gay. and in essence flamboyantly throwing it in straight peoples faces as if to say, "screw you for not believing like i do." to say that christians dont suffer persecution is ignorant at best, no most arent beaten or killed (some are), but verbally christians are abused. for referance, read some of our older threads in this forum. all through school i was made fun of for being a christian, in certain workplaces i was made fun of, by adults no less. in high school, being a christian was just as bad as being gay, when it came to being made fun of and picked on. so yes, throwing a straight white parade is rediculas because ive never been picked on for either of those. but throwing a Christian parade (by your own admission) is feasable. but you know how some people would treat me if i did throw a christian parade? the same way they would treat gays for a gay parade.
Ah, what the hell. I'm still awake, so here we go.
Originally posted by JuliusC
It's really simple why gay pride parades exist and straight, white, Christian male parades don't. Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian. Gay pride and the expression of gay pride exists because gays need to validate their own existence in a world that has marginalized them since the beginning of history. People don't have a "I love food" parade just because they love food, but if you haven't eaten anything for a month (and you lived), you would likely want to proclaim your love of food for those around you. The people who criticize gays for being vocal about their sexual orientation need to seriously examine their own lives and the advantages they have over most of the rest of country and the world- they're probably white, which means they don't know much about how racism affects American society in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, you had me all the way till you said this. this is a stereotype, and it just happens to be false. knowing much about how racism affects and experiencing it are two different things. no, ive never experienced what a black person might experience (being black), but that doesnt automaticly make me ignorant. and just to clarify, weve had this discussion on this board before, blacks now days dont experience the hardships that they might have 50 years ago. so this isnt even part of the issue. they're obviously straight, so they have no idea at all what it's like to be stigmatized by society for being they way they were born. yeah, cause society only stigmatizes gays, right? lol, sorry, invalid arguement. and again, knowing something and experiencing it are two different things. Oo and i have to throw this in here, Lilth says that she wasnt born gay and that no gay is born with it, whos right? are people born gay or do they turn gay? if you say that they are born with it, youre calling a gay person a lier. if you say that they arent born with it, youre contradicting yourself. and if you say both, youre just covering all your bases. what a pickle. im sure youll figure out a way out of it though. Consider for a moment that you were born differently and don't have all of the advantages that you're unaware that you have, and you be a step closer to understanding. And also, it's not as if the gay community is one entity in its beliefs and actions. For every flamboyant, leather-clad one you see marching in a parade, another is just quietly living his/her life and trying to stay away from trouble. The gay community internally is diverse as any other. and one last point id like to make. throwing a parade to celebrate gay pride doesnt make me want to honor them or support them. so how, praytell, is it productive? youve no doubt read the other posters opinion on this, most straight people dont support the parade and such, so who exactly are they trying to reach with this behavior? Answer: other gay people. they arent doing it to get equal rights, theyre doing it to let other gays know its alright to be gay. and in essence flamboyantly throwing it in straight peoples faces as if to say, "screw you for not believing like i do." to say that christians dont suffer persecution is ignorant at best, no most arent beaten or killed (some are), but verbally christians are abused. for referance, read some of our older threads in this forum. all through school i was made fun of for being a christian, in certain workplaces i was made fun of, by adults no less. in high school, being a christian was just as bad as being gay, when it came to being made fun of and picked on. so yes, throwing a straight white parade is rediculas because ive never been picked on for either of those. but throwing a Christian parade (by your own admission) is feasable. but you know how some people would treat me if i did throw a christian parade? the same way they would treat gays for a gay parade.
In response to block of green text #1:
If I implied that only white people are ignorant of race issues in America and hit a nerve, I would like to clarify my point. I pointed out white people specifically because most of the anti-gay folks in this debate are white. People of other ethnicities can be ignorant of issues concerning other races. And no, not experiencing something doesn't make you 100% ignorant, but it still does. The fact that you say "blacks now dont experience the hardships they might have 50 years ago" is a denial that racism exists at all now. Yes, you're right, it's not as bad as pre-Civil Rights times, but you'd be a fool to believe that blacks are on equal footing with whites. I'm not going to bother explaining how that is unless it's really needed, so you'll have to go with me. Racism is alive and kicking, and it sure seems like you don't know a lot about modern race issues (as opposed to historical ones). Why? Because you're not an oppressed minority. But being ignorant isn't necessarily a crime, and if I call you that, it's not a personal attack. It's just a product of environment.
In response to block of green text #2:
Okay, let me reword that sentence. "Straight people have much less of an idea what it's like to be stigmatized for being gay." I'm not entirely sure how the "is gay nature or nurture" debate fits into the argument - it seems like you're just picking apart my words. Okay, then change rather than saying "for they way they were born" into "for they way they are." Whether gay people are born gay or become gay isn't totally settled, but either way I believe (and you can argue that) there's very little choice involved in being gay. My argument still stands. If you're straight and don't think gays should have pride, you probably don't know what it's like to fear getting your ass kicked simply for being yourself.
Annnd block #3:
I'm personally not into the whole aesthetic and culture of the gay pride parades, but I do understand and support its purpose. In places where there is public support for them, it's a celebration that their lifestyle is acceptable. I live near San Francisco, and you can bet that the city and a lot of its straight residents support Pride day. In a lot of places in Europe, it's ended up in controversy, but that's the point. It's saying "screw you if you don't accept me, because we accept ourselves." Some Civil Rights rallies were a a big "fuck you" too, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's necessary for a marginalized population to validate themselves to the greater society.
Lastly, if you reread my original post, you might notice that I never said anything about Christians not understanding oppression, and you put those words in my mouth. I'm completely aware of oppression against Christians, and that's why I specifically chose not to say anything about it. And you're right, if you threw a Christian parade wherever you live, it'd be received in the same way a gay pride parade would in other places. It'd make a statement.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.
Please point out where I said I was an expert. The Focus on the Family people are NOT experts and the various people they try to quote have written letters to them asking them to stop misrepresenting the facts. Again, you are completely unable to provide a single link to unbiased and accurate statistical research. At least as a gay person myself I have some basic knowledge of the issue (note that I did not say I am an expert, just so this is clear to you). You have no knowledge at all, and have not read any of the information provided to you. But again, as a courtesy, here are a couple of places you can start...
Here's an excerpt from some of the research that I very easily did on Google, which you could have done yourself but obviously didn't-
"In the past week, two of the researchers that Dobson cited in the pages of Time, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, have spoken out about Dobson's misuse of their research. Pruett objects that Dobson "cherry-picked" statements from his work and cautions that "this practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles."
Pruett and Gilligan are only the latest social scientists to protest Dobson's distortion of their research. In summer 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about Dr. Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at NYU, who claims that Dobson manipulated her research to support discrimination against LGBT families. These and other instances of Dobson's misrepresentation of social science evidence are widely available, which makes it all the more troubling that Time has provided a forum for Dobson to violate once again the standards of scholarly and journalistic honesty.
When Dobson uses a trusted publication like Time to spread his half-truths and misinformation, it is a crisis for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Ultimately, statements such as Dobson's are used to support the denial of civil rights and even to justify violence against LGBT people. Although it may be less obvious, we believe that Dobson's column in Time is also a crisis for journalistic integrity. We hope that Time will join us in closing the credibility gap that occurs every time Dobson makes false statements and gambles that most readers will never see the counterpoints or corrections that are published, literally and figuratively, in the margins. We urge you to publish a follow-up column or article in the print edition of Time."
As for actual, scientific research into what causes homosexuality-
Ah, what the hell. I'm still awake, so here we go.
In response to block of green text #1: If I implied that only white people are ignorant of race issues in America and hit a nerve, I would like to clarify my point. I pointed out white people specifically because most of the anti-gay folks in this debate are white. People of other ethnicities can be ignorant of issues concerning other races. And no, not experiencing something doesn't make you 100% ignorant, but it still does. The fact that you say "blacks now dont experience the hardships they might have 50 years ago" is a denial that racism exists at all now. Yes, you're right, it's not as bad as pre-Civil Rights times, but you'd be a fool to believe that blacks are on equal footing with whites. I'm not going to bother explaining how that is unless it's really needed, so you'll have to go with me. Racism is alive and kicking, and it sure seems like you don't know a lot about modern race issues (as opposed to historical ones). Why? Because you're not an oppressed minority. But being ignorant isn't necessarily a crime, and if I call you that, it's not a personal attack. It's just a product of environment. In response to block of green text #2: Okay, let me reword that sentence. "Straight people have much less of an idea what it's like to be stigmatized for being gay." I'm not entirely sure how the "is gay nature or nurture" debate fits into the argument - it seems like you're just picking apart my words. Okay, then change rather than saying "for they way they were born" into "for they way they are." Whether gay people are born gay or become gay isn't totally settled, but either way I believe (and you can argue that) there's very little choice involved in being gay. My argument still stands. If you're straight and don't think gays should have pride, you probably don't know what it's like to fear getting your ass kicked simply for being yourself. Annnd block #3: I'm personally not into the whole aesthetic and culture of the gay pride parades, but I do understand and support its purpose. In places where there is public support for them, it's a celebration that their lifestyle is acceptable. I live near San Francisco, and you can bet that the city and a lot of its straight residents support Pride day. In a lot of places in Europe, it's ended up in controversy, but that's the point. It's saying "screw you if you don't accept me, because we accept ourselves." Some Civil Rights rallies were a a big "fuck you" too, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's necessary for a marginalized population to validate themselves to the greater society. Lastly, if you reread my original post, you might notice that I never said anything about Christians not understanding oppression, and you put those words in my mouth. I'm completely aware of oppression against Christians, and that's why I specifically chose not to say anything about it. And you're right, if you threw a Christian parade wherever you live, it'd be received in the same way a gay pride parade would in other places. It'd make a statement.
thank you for responding. while i do respect your opinion, and can definitely understand your point of view. (it makes sense). i do know and understand alot of the pressures of being in the minority in todays culture. but as ive stated in another thread that is prolly too buried to dig up now, i have several black friends and none of them have it hard by any MANS standard. hell, theyll even admit that they dont have it hard. one of them is going to college on a GOVERNMENT funded grant that hell never have to pay back....ever. a four year school, many many thousands of dollars. he like many others that i know are actually treated like gods in me little town. im not even going to pretend i know what its like there in San Francisco or thereabout. but around here, blacks are treated way better than equal, so much so that i and many others wish we were born black. me point of this is that even if they are treated unequally there or where, they arent treated like that everywhere. that was me point of the comment about not having the same hardships. 50 years ago, they had to ride the back of the bus, today they choose to ride the back of the bus. 50 years ago they had to use "special" bathrooms and schools, today they choose to have "special" schools. there cant be an "all white school", but there sure as hell can be a "all black school". 50 years ago they werent allowed to get the best jobs, today they choose to not get the best jobs (generalizing i know, exceptions occur of course, i already mentioned one). 50 years ago they werent taught how to speak and spell properly, today they choose not to learn how to speak and spell properly. again, i know that that was alot of generalizing. but overall its true. about as true as saying that "I pointed out white people specifically because most of the anti-gay folks in this debate are white."
in response to the second paragraph, i told you that youd get out of it, i knew you would. me point was that if youre all not agreeable as to how or when someone becomes gay, then why should we straight people trust your "facts" about being gay. when some gays say that they MUST be born that way, and others say that they turned gay. and both use "experts" in scientific fields to convince us straight people that they have no choice. thats how it fits into this discussion. you can throw this aside and say, "its not important why or when someone is gay, the point is that they cant change it", but i believe it is very relavent because if gays dont even know when or how, how can we trust that they cant choose one way or the other. sorry, this is just me own personal opinion (not scientifically proven, not ironclad, just me opinion) but i believe that its a disorder. a product of undisaplined, chaotic, irrational, impulsive behavior. stemming from a desire to rebel against religion and authority. again, its me opinion, and me opinion doesnt affect you in the least, im not a doctor or expert. im not a public figure, lawyer, or anyone that can affect you in any way, shape, or form. so please dont feel the need to "set me straight", cause it wont work, its completely unnecessary, and itll affect nothing. and i have nothing against gays having pride or whatever. but throwing a parade isnt the way to get it, if anything, its kinda like asking to get your ass kicked, lol.
and i hate to generalize once again, but you said you live near San Francisco. its a pretty well known fact that that area is one of the most liberal areas in the entire US (e.g. Hollywood). its hardly a good place to call the norm when it comes to how minoritys are treated. and again, throwing a parade to say, "fuck you", doesnt affect change of mind in straight people. it just pisses people off, it starts fights, and it raises hosility toward said minority. now if that is the effect that gays want, then admit it. dont pretend that its to lobby for equal rights, if its just to piss people off. and if that is the effect that they want then yes, i do have a problem with it. cause that is no different than skin-heads marching.
and lastly, i quote:
Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian.
so you see, you did in fact, make a comment about christians not understanding oppression.
again, thank you for responding. im enjoying a good debate with an inteligent individual instead of a flamewar with a retard, lol, nice change of pace.
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.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.
Please point out where I said I was an expert. The Focus on the Family people are NOT experts and the various people they try to quote have written letters to them asking them to stop misrepresenting the facts. Again, you are completely unable to provide a single link to unbiased and accurate statistical research. At least as a gay person myself I have some basic knowledge of the issue (note that I did not say I am an expert, just so this is clear to you). You have no knowledge at all, and have not read any of the information provided to you. But again, as a courtesy, here are a couple of places you can start...
Here's an excerpt from some of the research that I very easily did on Google, which you could have done yourself but obviously didn't-
"In the past week, two of the researchers that Dobson cited in the pages of Time, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, have spoken out about Dobson's misuse of their research. Pruett objects that Dobson "cherry-picked" statements from his work and cautions that "this practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles."
Pruett and Gilligan are only the latest social scientists to protest Dobson's distortion of their research. In summer 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about Dr. Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at NYU, who claims that Dobson manipulated her research to support discrimination against LGBT families. These and other instances of Dobson's misrepresentation of social science evidence are widely available, which makes it all the more troubling that Time has provided a forum for Dobson to violate once again the standards of scholarly and journalistic honesty.
When Dobson uses a trusted publication like Time to spread his half-truths and misinformation, it is a crisis for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Ultimately, statements such as Dobson's are used to support the denial of civil rights and even to justify violence against LGBT people. Although it may be less obvious, we believe that Dobson's column in Time is also a crisis for journalistic integrity. We hope that Time will join us in closing the credibility gap that occurs every time Dobson makes false statements and gambles that most readers will never see the counterpoints or corrections that are published, literally and figuratively, in the margins. We urge you to publish a follow-up column or article in the print edition of Time."
As for actual, scientific research into what causes homosexuality-
Heck, you can do it yourself. Just Google "Cause of homosexuality'" ant then actually read it. It's not hard. Reading is fundamental.
whoa, slow down there pal, im not brainy. i wasnt even in your little quabble with him. i was just pointing out a fallicy in your post. and apparently, you wouldnt accept anything i pointed out anyway, so im not going to bother. however, i will say this, you are dead wrong about the focus on the family doctors. they are in fact experts, whether you accept that or not.
me point of saying that you arent an expert either is that you were making such a huge deal out of brainy not being an expert, while making yourself out to be one.
i dont judge you for being gay, please dont misunderstand. i have several gay friends, you wont hear me bash you at all. please give me the same respect.
I don't need a scientist or some psychiatrist to research and try and find if homosexuality is wrong or not. I have my bible right here from the creator who made and designed your body and how its supposed to function and what he says on the subject of homosexuality is more truth than any scientist or unbiased opinion or psychiatrist can say. the problem with this argument is a matter of morality, morals come from man and what they are designed to believe and know right from wrong, what is happening now days is people have no sense of morals anymore they're trying to rewrite morals and question its authority and that path is a path of destruction.
I don't need a scientist or some psychiatrist to research and try and find if homosexuality is wrong or not. I have my bible right here from the creator who made and designed your body and how its supposed to function and what he says on the subject of homosexuality is more truth than any scientist or unbiased opinion or psychiatrist can say. the problem with this argument is a matter of morality, morals come from man and what they are designed to believe and know right from wrong, what is happening now days is people have no sense of morals anymore they're trying to rewrite morals and question its authority and that path is a path of destruction.
Comments
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost.
I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one.
______________________________
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost.
I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one.
and you know what. If you wanted be a white supremacist - then that is your right. As long as you're not dragging black people around by the bumper of your car.
You already have one, they just march under a different name - it's called neo-nazism
what the hell!? where do you get that im a neo-nazi? i said white straight CHRISTIAN. think your trying to start something here.
I wasn't being serious. Sorry if my sarcasm was lost.
I just meant your typical white-supremacist is a straight white christian man.
Oo ok, lol, sorry i jumped on that so fast. its just that some people have recently been serious when making comments like that, so i wasnt sure how to take it. np, good one.
and you know what. If you wanted be a white supremacist - then that is your right. As long as you're not dragging black people around by the bumper of your car.
We don't discriminate. Every non-white non-protestant and homo has a chance of being dragged from my bumper.
What's funny is I have never heard about or seen a gay pride parade and I live in New York. The only way you'll really hear about it is if you go out of your way to look for it. It seems every day there is another parade for something, and if someone wants to be proud of who they are whether it be Hispanic, Jewish, Chinese or Irish then by all means go ahead and march. It happens once a year - for me that isn't a big deal.
The only parade that drives me crazy is that damn Thanksgiving Day parade - the entire city has to shut down for it.
Oddly enough, we've had more neo nazi parades around my area than gay pride. In fact I don't think we've had any gay pride parades at all, but in VA there have been quite a few neo nazi rallies/parades. They walk down the streets and disrupt everything, even more so than a gay parade since their goal is to cause some sort of riot. I think they even caused one riot fairly recently, which was on the news.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Damn,
I just skimmed throught his entire thread.
Anyway, to make a semi-reasonable point,
I don't care what people do with their own time, i care when it affects my time, from my upbringing, homosexuality is a taboo but currenty, i'm like who the hell gives a damn. I wonder about homosexuality myself.
People say it's as natural as skin color which would mean it would have a genetic component, which is plausible but can easily be criticized. I wonder when you see these porn stars have no problems with lesbo sex, when inmates screw each other and what not. I think that people's mentality can change the way they think and act if they tried hard enough.
In all honesty, If I wasn't brought up the way I was, i'd probably experiment myself. I'm perhaps a few rationalizations away. I know that I'm attracted to chicks, that's my default setting, but it wouldn't be that difficult for me to think about being attracted to guys either, i guess you'd call it toggling that specific setting, I think people are able to toggle it to some degree. I know i sound like i'm fucked up, but I'm just being honest with myself.
Anyway, I agree with the person who said it's about perception, we percieve it when a gay person says X or Y that they're shoving it down our face, when we have no problems, saying "OMG look at HER RACK or ASS". It's all a matter of perception.
Also, is it just me, or are african-americans the most flamboyant of homosexuals. Of all the homosexuals I've ever seen in my life, I find African-Americans to be the most ostentatious of the group. Oh well
. Perhaps in african-american sub-culture, it's a greater stigma.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
My take on it is 99.9% of the populaiton dont give a monkeys about peoples sexual orientation but i also agree that those of a non heterosexual persuasion certainly bang on about it alot more than people want to here. Thats what gets my goat up.
My other beef is when charity money like the lottery fund gets spent on groups organing parades or spent on legal fees for different gay groups when there are baby hospices struggling for funding.
I shall put my soap box away now
Greatness is difficult to appreciate from close up. The great mountain on the horizon is only the ground when you are standing on it.
do you know what one of the worse things you can do (in my opinion anyway) put yourself in a box. it takes a moment to fall into and a lifetime to climb out of, plus its so small in there.
if anyone ever thinks about any thing i say then please let it be this: dont let what you do become what you are. live, love, and learn.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
No but you could start a band and name it The Petshop Boys
(For the uneducated Petshop Boy is a term used for those who use Gerbils in... lets just say an unconventional manner)
As to the announcements being an old metalhead/punk rocker I'm use to it. Back in the 80's it was only the gay clubs in a lot of areas that would host punk shows, punkers were usually attacked by different groups for the high offense of thinking for themselves instead of letting the media masters lead them by their nose. I just wear a button that says "Please Don't Feed or Tease the Straight People"
Us straight people would need far too many parades, there's be the "I Only Did It Once But Act Like I'm a Pro Parade" the "No Fat Chicks Parade" the "Only Fat Chicks Parade" the "I'll @#$% Anything That's Almost Passed Out Drunk Parade" the "I'm Saving Myself For the Supermodel Who Won't Even Look at Me Parade" the "Ehhh You'll Do Parade" the "Her Husband's Out of Town Parade" and a host of others.
µV
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
they're trying to pressure the public to accepting their lifestyle as "normal" when it is in fact "Not". If someone presses the issue long enough, soon people will begin to not care anymore, and the young kids nowdays when they are old, and have their kids, they will be more common and accepted cause it has become so widely expressed by the homosexuals. I am sure that we will probably see the day when preachers and pastors will not be able to get in their pulpits and say homosexuality is wrong because of "Hate Speech" the homosexual community is already trying to get laws like they do in canada concerning this issue. If you listen to some of the most popular homosexuals in hollywood/entertainment industry they're aim is directly targeted at religions that don't accept homosexuality as normal but immoral. just like elton john said that "all religion should be banned" or rosie o'donnell's statements that "radical christianity is just as threatening as radical islam in a country like america" This country was founded on christianity, christianity is woven throughout our government and the pure essence of our establishment is on God the Father his son Jesus the Holy Spirit and his Holy written word.
Gelasius
I think its absolutely absurd what a few people are trying to say that "it happens in a few species of animals" so it must be ok for us and is perfectly natural. There are many things that happen naturally that are not acceptable to humans. You know many animals actually kill thier rivals or others in their society for various reasons. Heck I was watching Meerkat Manor and the Lead Meerkat will kill the pups of her daughters because they are not allowed to mate.
So because killing is accepted in animals, I suppose that should be perfectly fine for humans. Heck killing in humans has been happening in our own species, so there you have it. Murder should be perfectly fine, RIGHT? I really wonder whats the next social agenda going to be. No more prisons or prisoners? Oooh poor charles manson he was going through a rough time in his life. Nobody deserves that. Whether your religous or not, its pretty hard not to agree that as they destroy religion, so goes the laws that were based on religion.
Without religion I can see they are going to call into question ever single commandment. If there is not "God" then who's to say theft and murder are wrong? Maybe those are really what everyone should be doing, and not killing is actually the real sin? Talk about Chaos.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Errr.... please tell me (besides "scientists" from "Focus on the family") which scientists and psychologists said anything against homosexuality, homosexuality was taken out of the disorder lists in the 70's, and as for comparing homosexuality with bestiality always the same retoric used and even if people answer it with "bestiality doesnt include 2 willing partners" it doesnt seem to put you off.
And with your "sterile part" in your argument, are you actually saying that sterile people should not be allowed to have children since nature made them sterile?...
Please stop making pointless posts that have been answered time and again...
Oh and for the biological part of being homosexual, here is 2 studies that strongly supporte the biological factor of the sexual orientation, can you show me 2 studies supporting homosexuality as a choice? no? i thought so.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-09-homosexual-brains_x.htm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
Thank you
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Errr.... please tell me (besides "scientists" from "Focus on the family") which scientists and psychologists said anything against homosexuality, homosexuality was taken out of the disorder lists in the 70's, and as for comparing homosexuality with bestiality always the same retoric used and even if people answer it with "bestiality doesnt include 2 willing partners" it doesnt seem to put you off.
you do realize that when a man or woman has sex with an animal, sometimes the animal is indeed willing. e.g. dog humping your leg, maybe hes just scratching his penis, lol.
And with your "sterile part" in your argument, are you actually saying that sterile people should not be allowed to have children since nature made them sterile?...
hes not talking about people that are sterile because of desease or mutation or whatever. hes saying that when two animals of different species mate, their offspring is always, always sterile. e.g. liger
Please stop making pointless posts that have been answered time and again...
Oh and for the biological part of being homosexual, here is 2 studies that strongly supporte the biological factor of the sexual orientation, can you show me 2 studies supporting homosexuality as a choice? no? i thought so.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-09-homosexual-brains_x.htm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
Thank you
interesting reads, thanks for posting them.
______________________________
It's really simple why gay pride parades exist and straight, white, Christian male parades don't. Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian. Gay pride and the expression of gay pride exists because gays need to validate their own existence in a world that has marginalized them since the beginning of history. People don't have a "I love food" parade just because they love food, but if you haven't eaten anything for a month (and you lived), you would likely want to proclaim your love of food for those around you.
The people who criticize gays for being vocal about their sexual orientation need to seriously examine their own lives and the advantages they have over most of the rest of country and the world- they're probably white, which means they don't know much about how racism affects American society in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, they're obviously straight, so they have no idea at all what it's like to be stigmatized by society for being they way they were born. Consider for a moment that you were born differently and don't have all of the advantages that you're unaware that you have, and you be a step closer to understanding.
And also, it's not as if the gay community is one entity in its beliefs and actions. For every flamboyant, leather-clad one you see marching in a parade, another is just quietly living his/her life and trying to stay away from trouble. The gay community internally is diverse as any other.
______________________________
Ah, what the hell. I'm still awake, so here we go.
In response to block of green text #1:
If I implied that only white people are ignorant of race issues in America and hit a nerve, I would like to clarify my point. I pointed out white people specifically because most of the anti-gay folks in this debate are white. People of other ethnicities can be ignorant of issues concerning other races. And no, not experiencing something doesn't make you 100% ignorant, but it still does. The fact that you say "blacks now dont experience the hardships they might have 50 years ago" is a denial that racism exists at all now. Yes, you're right, it's not as bad as pre-Civil Rights times, but you'd be a fool to believe that blacks are on equal footing with whites. I'm not going to bother explaining how that is unless it's really needed, so you'll have to go with me. Racism is alive and kicking, and it sure seems like you don't know a lot about modern race issues (as opposed to historical ones). Why? Because you're not an oppressed minority. But being ignorant isn't necessarily a crime, and if I call you that, it's not a personal attack. It's just a product of environment.
In response to block of green text #2:
Okay, let me reword that sentence. "Straight people have much less of an idea what it's like to be stigmatized for being gay." I'm not entirely sure how the "is gay nature or nurture" debate fits into the argument - it seems like you're just picking apart my words. Okay, then change rather than saying "for they way they were born" into "for they way they are." Whether gay people are born gay or become gay isn't totally settled, but either way I believe (and you can argue that) there's very little choice involved in being gay. My argument still stands. If you're straight and don't think gays should have pride, you probably don't know what it's like to fear getting your ass kicked simply for being yourself.
Annnd block #3:
I'm personally not into the whole aesthetic and culture of the gay pride parades, but I do understand and support its purpose. In places where there is public support for them, it's a celebration that their lifestyle is acceptable. I live near San Francisco, and you can bet that the city and a lot of its straight residents support Pride day. In a lot of places in Europe, it's ended up in controversy, but that's the point. It's saying "screw you if you don't accept me, because we accept ourselves." Some Civil Rights rallies were a a big "fuck you" too, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's necessary for a marginalized population to validate themselves to the greater society.
Lastly, if you reread my original post, you might notice that I never said anything about Christians not understanding oppression, and you put those words in my mouth. I'm completely aware of oppression against Christians, and that's why I specifically chose not to say anything about it. And you're right, if you threw a Christian parade wherever you live, it'd be received in the same way a gay pride parade would in other places. It'd make a statement.
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.______________________________
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.Please point out where I said I was an expert. The Focus on the Family people are NOT experts and the various people they try to quote have written letters to them asking them to stop misrepresenting the facts. Again, you are completely unable to provide a single link to unbiased and accurate statistical research. At least as a gay person myself I have some basic knowledge of the issue (note that I did not say I am an expert, just so this is clear to you). You have no knowledge at all, and have not read any of the information provided to you. But again, as a courtesy, here are a couple of places you can start...
http://www.truthwinsout.org/
http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=37
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/19/gilligan
Here's an excerpt from some of the research that I very easily did on Google, which you could have done yourself but obviously didn't-
"In the past week, two of the researchers that Dobson cited in the pages of Time, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, have spoken out about Dobson's misuse of their research. Pruett objects that Dobson "cherry-picked" statements from his work and cautions that "this practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles."
Pruett and Gilligan are only the latest social scientists to protest Dobson's distortion of their research. In summer 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about Dr. Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at NYU, who claims that Dobson manipulated her research to support discrimination against LGBT families. These and other instances of Dobson's misrepresentation of social science evidence are widely available, which makes it all the more troubling that Time has provided a forum for Dobson to violate once again the standards of scholarly and journalistic honesty.
When Dobson uses a trusted publication like Time to spread his half-truths and misinformation, it is a crisis for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Ultimately, statements such as Dobson's are used to support the denial of civil rights and even to justify violence against LGBT people. Although it may be less obvious, we believe that Dobson's column in Time is also a crisis for journalistic integrity. We hope that Time will join us in closing the credibility gap that occurs every time Dobson makes false statements and gambles that most readers will never see the counterpoints or corrections that are published, literally and figuratively, in the margins. We urge you to publish a follow-up column or article in the print edition of Time."
As for actual, scientific research into what causes homosexuality-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/22/1728_56075?src=Inktomi&condition=Home%20&%20Top%20Stories
Heck, you can do it yourself. Just Google "Cause of homosexuality'" ant then actually read it. It's not hard. Reading is fundamental.
thank you for responding. while i do respect your opinion, and can definitely understand your point of view. (it makes sense). i do know and understand alot of the pressures of being in the minority in todays culture. but as ive stated in another thread that is prolly too buried to dig up now, i have several black friends and none of them have it hard by any MANS standard. hell, theyll even admit that they dont have it hard. one of them is going to college on a GOVERNMENT funded grant that hell never have to pay back....ever. a four year school, many many thousands of dollars. he like many others that i know are actually treated like gods in me little town. im not even going to pretend i know what its like there in San Francisco or thereabout. but around here, blacks are treated way better than equal, so much so that i and many others wish we were born black. me point of this is that even if they are treated unequally there or where, they arent treated like that everywhere. that was me point of the comment about not having the same hardships. 50 years ago, they had to ride the back of the bus, today they choose to ride the back of the bus. 50 years ago they had to use "special" bathrooms and schools, today they choose to have "special" schools. there cant be an "all white school", but there sure as hell can be a "all black school". 50 years ago they werent allowed to get the best jobs, today they choose to not get the best jobs (generalizing i know, exceptions occur of course, i already mentioned one). 50 years ago they werent taught how to speak and spell properly, today they choose not to learn how to speak and spell properly. again, i know that that was alot of generalizing. but overall its true. about as true as saying that "I pointed out white people specifically because most of the anti-gay folks in this debate are white."
in response to the second paragraph, i told you that youd get out of it, i knew you would. me point was that if youre all not agreeable as to how or when someone becomes gay, then why should we straight people trust your "facts" about being gay. when some gays say that they MUST be born that way, and others say that they turned gay. and both use "experts" in scientific fields to convince us straight people that they have no choice. thats how it fits into this discussion. you can throw this aside and say, "its not important why or when someone is gay, the point is that they cant change it", but i believe it is very relavent because if gays dont even know when or how, how can we trust that they cant choose one way or the other. sorry, this is just me own personal opinion (not scientifically proven, not ironclad, just me opinion) but i believe that its a disorder. a product of undisaplined, chaotic, irrational, impulsive behavior. stemming from a desire to rebel against religion and authority. again, its me opinion, and me opinion doesnt affect you in the least, im not a doctor or expert. im not a public figure, lawyer, or anyone that can affect you in any way, shape, or form. so please dont feel the need to "set me straight", cause it wont work, its completely unnecessary, and itll affect nothing. and i have nothing against gays having pride or whatever. but throwing a parade isnt the way to get it, if anything, its kinda like asking to get your ass kicked, lol.
and i hate to generalize once again, but you said you live near San Francisco. its a pretty well known fact that that area is one of the most liberal areas in the entire US (e.g. Hollywood). its hardly a good place to call the norm when it comes to how minoritys are treated. and again, throwing a parade to say, "fuck you", doesnt affect change of mind in straight people. it just pisses people off, it starts fights, and it raises hosility toward said minority. now if that is the effect that gays want, then admit it. dont pretend that its to lobby for equal rights, if its just to piss people off. and if that is the effect that they want then yes, i do have a problem with it. cause that is no different than skin-heads marching.
and lastly, i quote:
Straight, white, Christian males in America have never been insulted, degraded, beaten, or killed for being either straight, white, or Christian.
so you see, you did in fact, make a comment about christians not understanding oppression.
again, thank you for responding. im enjoying a good debate with an inteligent individual instead of a flamewar with a retard, lol, nice change of pace.
______________________________
Your arguement here is extremely offbase. His reasoning was very logical. There is absolutely no proof to show homosexual activity is natural. In fact you cannot prove that being homosexual is any more natural than beastiality. In either case there are natural consequences to the action. In both cases either offspring cannot be produced. if two different species do mate and have offspring then the offspring is sterile. Seems a pretty big sign showing nature is saying WRONG in both cases. If anything beastiality (which is not saying much) is more natural then homosexuality because at least with beastiality there is a small chance that two different species can actually reproduce.
And Scientists, Psychologist dont agree that homosexuality is natural. In fact its the other way around, I have no clue where you are getting your information, its blantantly false.
Seriously, have you even read any of the links provided? And why is it that straight people always claim to be such experts on what makes gay people gay, but when a gay person tries to explain it, we're dismissed as liars. If I wanted to know what it was like to be black I wouldn't talk to a white person.
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true, especially when you won't read the links provided and even more since you are straight yourself and have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You're not a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, evolutionary scientist, etc. etc . etc. You have no knowledge at all on the subject, but you like to continue to make the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality based solely on your own prejudices and those of the Focus on Family "experts".
neither are you, unless i miss me mark, lol. yet your claiming expertise. and just so you know, the "focus on the family" experts, lol, actually are psychologists, biologists, psychiatrists, and creationist scientists, etc, etc, etc. so your arguement IS offbase.Please point out where I said I was an expert. The Focus on the Family people are NOT experts and the various people they try to quote have written letters to them asking them to stop misrepresenting the facts. Again, you are completely unable to provide a single link to unbiased and accurate statistical research. At least as a gay person myself I have some basic knowledge of the issue (note that I did not say I am an expert, just so this is clear to you). You have no knowledge at all, and have not read any of the information provided to you. But again, as a courtesy, here are a couple of places you can start...
http://www.truthwinsout.org/
http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=37
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/19/gilligan
Here's an excerpt from some of the research that I very easily did on Google, which you could have done yourself but obviously didn't-
"In the past week, two of the researchers that Dobson cited in the pages of Time, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, have spoken out about Dobson's misuse of their research. Pruett objects that Dobson "cherry-picked" statements from his work and cautions that "this practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles."
Pruett and Gilligan are only the latest social scientists to protest Dobson's distortion of their research. In summer 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about Dr. Judith Stacey, Professor of Sociology at NYU, who claims that Dobson manipulated her research to support discrimination against LGBT families. These and other instances of Dobson's misrepresentation of social science evidence are widely available, which makes it all the more troubling that Time has provided a forum for Dobson to violate once again the standards of scholarly and journalistic honesty.
When Dobson uses a trusted publication like Time to spread his half-truths and misinformation, it is a crisis for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Ultimately, statements such as Dobson's are used to support the denial of civil rights and even to justify violence against LGBT people. Although it may be less obvious, we believe that Dobson's column in Time is also a crisis for journalistic integrity. We hope that Time will join us in closing the credibility gap that occurs every time Dobson makes false statements and gambles that most readers will never see the counterpoints or corrections that are published, literally and figuratively, in the margins. We urge you to publish a follow-up column or article in the print edition of Time."
As for actual, scientific research into what causes homosexuality-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/22/1728_56075?src=Inktomi&condition=Home%20&%20Top%20Stories
Heck, you can do it yourself. Just Google "Cause of homosexuality'" ant then actually read it. It's not hard. Reading is fundamental.
whoa, slow down there pal, im not brainy. i wasnt even in your little quabble with him. i was just pointing out a fallicy in your post. and apparently, you wouldnt accept anything i pointed out anyway, so im not going to bother. however, i will say this, you are dead wrong about the focus on the family doctors. they are in fact experts, whether you accept that or not.
me point of saying that you arent an expert either is that you were making such a huge deal out of brainy not being an expert, while making yourself out to be one.
i dont judge you for being gay, please dont misunderstand. i have several gay friends, you wont hear me bash you at all. please give me the same respect.
______________________________
I don't need a scientist or some psychiatrist to research and try and find if homosexuality is wrong or not. I have my bible right here from the creator who made and designed your body and how its supposed to function and what he says on the subject of homosexuality is more truth than any scientist or unbiased opinion or psychiatrist can say. the problem with this argument is a matter of morality, morals come from man and what they are designed to believe and know right from wrong, what is happening now days is people have no sense of morals anymore they're trying to rewrite morals and question its authority and that path is a path of destruction.
Gelasius
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked