Homosexuals
-
Mazy if you want real *diverse* answers you have to remember CP is not the place for it because most CPians are just girly guys anyway and to me that's just one step away from being gay. They will naturally be more inclined to promote gayness because most of them are girly/gay/slash take it any way they can get it. ;) Jeremy Falcon
So most CPians, you think, are un(der)sexed flakes who promote homosexuality in hopes of taking/giving one in the kiester? :confused: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Trollslayer wrote: If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. Are you implying genetic variations are a disease and need to be cured? I dont think so, but it sounds like that ;-)
Sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear. There seems to be a natural variation in how genes work and homosexuality is part of that. Just like some people like working indoors, some outdoors. Even if it were possible to prevent this natual tendency, I suspect it would be danerous since diversity provides flexibility when things change. Imagine if there was a disease that everyone in the population was vulnerable to, instead of some more and some less. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
So most CPians, you think, are un(der)sexed flakes who promote homosexuality in hopes of taking/giving one in the kiester? :confused: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
Not quite, but I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. Jeremy Falcon
-
Not quite, but I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Not quite Whew, I was making plans to come down there and kick your ass. ;) Jeremy Falcon wrote: I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. I would guess mostly through masterbation, but there probably is a not insignificant number of "homosexuals" who are just getting their rocks off that way, because they feel an easy acceptance into that circle, and have other issues keeping them from approaching women. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Mazdak wrote: these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage It's not "gay" marriage, it's same-sex marriage. For instance, a lesbian and a male catholic priest (assumed to be gay due to the recent rash of news stories about their preferences for little boys) can marry each other if they want to, but the priest can't marry another priest... I do not think that same-sex marriage is acceptable, but I also don't think the federal government should be sticking their noses into that kind of business through abusive addition of a Constitutional ammendment. ------- sig starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 "You won't like me when I'm angry..." - Dr. Bruce Banner Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- sig ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I do not think that same-sex marriage is acceptable, but I also don't think the federal government should be sticking their noses into that kind of business through abusive addition of a Constitutional ammendment. I agree. Marriage is a church doctrine and the state is supposed to be separate from the church. The founders of the US made it this way to protect our religious freedom. Brad Jennings Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
-
Ok friends , seriously ,these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage,now some questions come to my mind. Why there is no talking about lesbian marriage? Are they silent about it or they have some laws now which satisfy them or...? And another thing that I want to know,is not about their marriage,it is about their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance ;) ) Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
I took a progressive psychology class a couple of semesters ago and they had done statistical analysis over data covering this very topic. They found that the environment in which you grow up has little bearing on whether you will grow up to be homosexual or not. If I remember correctly, they had isolated a genetic structure that they suspected to cause a person to be gay, but this is only a theory at this point. Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
-
Sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear. There seems to be a natural variation in how genes work and homosexuality is part of that. Just like some people like working indoors, some outdoors. Even if it were possible to prevent this natual tendency, I suspect it would be danerous since diversity provides flexibility when things change. Imagine if there was a disease that everyone in the population was vulnerable to, instead of some more and some less. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
I knew what you meant. :-) And agree with what you are saying. Was trying to throw some humour into what was otherwise becoming too serious and too foolish a discussion (no not talking about you). Once upon a time I used to think that software developers and engineers were a new generation. Well educated and focussed on creation of something new. Now I realize that like many other genes, the stupidity gene flows through us too :-) and there ain't no cure for this one. Never will be. I think if we all put in the same level of effort into our work instead of homosexual marriage or whatever we would be more productive and would not have to worry about loosing our jobs to some off shore company :-)
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Not quite Whew, I was making plans to come down there and kick your ass. ;) Jeremy Falcon wrote: I do believe people will find sexual gratification by other means if they don't get it by normal means. I would guess mostly through masterbation, but there probably is a not insignificant number of "homosexuals" who are just getting their rocks off that way, because they feel an easy acceptance into that circle, and have other issues keeping them from approaching women. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
brianwelsch wrote: Whew, I was making plans to come down there and kick your ass. Hey, you damn yankees can't talk to me like that! ;P brianwelsch wrote: I would guess mostly through masterbation, but there probably is a not insignificant number of "homosexuals" who are just getting their rocks off that way, because they feel an easy acceptance into that circle, and have other issues keeping them from approaching women. I believe masturbation is just a way to hold us guys over until we get laid. Masturbation alone is not a replacement for sex IMO. Hence, one would still desire some form of sexual gratification. Jeremy Falcon
-
brianwelsch wrote: Whew, I was making plans to come down there and kick your ass. Hey, you damn yankees can't talk to me like that! ;P brianwelsch wrote: I would guess mostly through masterbation, but there probably is a not insignificant number of "homosexuals" who are just getting their rocks off that way, because they feel an easy acceptance into that circle, and have other issues keeping them from approaching women. I believe masturbation is just a way to hold us guys over until we get laid. Masturbation alone is not a replacement for sex IMO. Hence, one would still desire some form of sexual gratification. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Masturbation alone is not a replacement for sex IMO Maybe you're just not using the right lubricants... ------- sig starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 "You won't like me when I'm angry..." - Dr. Bruce Banner Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- sig ends
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Damn good point! We could always use their line: I can't help it, I was born homophobic. ;) Jeremy Falcon
You do have a right to be homophobic. You also have the right to believe that frisbee is sinful. Noone's going to throw you in jail for hating frisbee throwers. You just have to accept that alot of people are going to look at you funny, and suggest that you seriously question your f***ed up beliefs. Avid frisbeerers are probably going to be quite insulted and say "what the hell is WRONG with you?!?" The government shouldn't pass laws banning someone from playing frisbee in their own backyard, or set up taxation such that they'd pay thousands of dollars less if they played baseball instead. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I do not think that same-sex marriage is acceptable, but I also don't think the federal government should be sticking their noses into that kind of business through abusive addition of a Constitutional ammendment. I agree. Marriage is a church doctrine and the state is supposed to be separate from the church. The founders of the US made it this way to protect our religious freedom. Brad Jennings Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
You seem a little new to the topic; (1) like it or not, marriage is something with implications in church, law, finance, and society in general. Married couples recieve many benefits that singles do not. If you allowed gays to form something similar to a common-law relationships, (e.g. a marriage recognized by state and society, but not by church) then you would address 90% of the greivances by gay people. (2) There's more than one f***ing church! Get off your high-horse! Alot of the world doesn't view homosexuality as being wrong! Would you refuse to recognize a marriage if it was held in a buddhist church? Such a marriage would not be a marriage under God (not your god anyway) Why then do you deny that homosexual marriage is valid? ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. My child, my discision. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Yes, but this isn't evolution it is coercion. Progress as defined by who? How many of us get a voice as to what represents progress? I don't believe in clinging to the past, unless it is all I have left to cling to to avoid falling into the abyss. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
> My child, my discision That's a guaranteed recipe to cause your child to hate you and never talk to you again once they leave your roof. Do you honestly think you'd be able to change your child's nature? > Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Saddam has spoken ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
You do have a right to be homophobic. You also have the right to believe that frisbee is sinful. Noone's going to throw you in jail for hating frisbee throwers. You just have to accept that alot of people are going to look at you funny, and suggest that you seriously question your f***ed up beliefs. Avid frisbeerers are probably going to be quite insulted and say "what the hell is WRONG with you?!?" The government shouldn't pass laws banning someone from playing frisbee in their own backyard, or set up taxation such that they'd pay thousands of dollars less if they played baseball instead. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
But your idea of playing Frisbee is not my idea of playing Frisbee. I shouldn't be forced by the government to accept your idea of playing Frisbee as mine. You should in fact create a new sport with deferent rules and benefits. Jeremy Falcon
-
But your idea of playing Frisbee is not my idea of playing Frisbee. I shouldn't be forced by the government to accept your idea of playing Frisbee as mine. You should in fact create a new sport with deferent rules and benefits. Jeremy Falcon
I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. If we did 'create a new sport', as in, create a new relationship type for gays with all the benefits of marriage, then I think the gays of your country would be quite happy with that compromise. They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. If we did 'create a new sport', as in, create a new relationship type for gays with all the benefits of marriage, then I think the gays of your country would be quite happy with that compromise. They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: I don't understand what you mean; the governemnt will never force you to accept homosexuality. To me marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It would be like saying marriage isn't marriage when it's gays. But, if the gov. deems it marriage then it's a push towards making me accept it too. If we stroll on the marriage doesn't have to be a man and a woman tangent I could just as well marry my dog. *woof* *woof* Rover's happy. :) AdventureBoy wrote: They would still be a little pissed off, becasue you would still not be officially recognizing them as being morally equal, but they would celebrate the fact that they were no longer being financially discriminate against. Who knows. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. My child, my discision. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Yes, but this isn't evolution it is coercion. Progress as defined by who? How many of us get a voice as to what represents progress? I don't believe in clinging to the past, unless it is all I have left to cling to to avoid falling into the abyss. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Stan Shannon wrote: My child, my discision. Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Stan Shannon wrote: Progress as defined by who? The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not. Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Stan Shannon wrote: Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
You seem a little new to the topic; (1) like it or not, marriage is something with implications in church, law, finance, and society in general. Married couples recieve many benefits that singles do not. If you allowed gays to form something similar to a common-law relationships, (e.g. a marriage recognized by state and society, but not by church) then you would address 90% of the greivances by gay people. (2) There's more than one f***ing church! Get off your high-horse! Alot of the world doesn't view homosexuality as being wrong! Would you refuse to recognize a marriage if it was held in a buddhist church? Such a marriage would not be a marriage under God (not your god anyway) Why then do you deny that homosexual marriage is valid? ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: There's more than one f***ing church! Get off your high-horse! Are you directing this at me? Where in my post did I mention there being only one church? I never made mention of my feelings about gay marriage either. Just for clarity's sake, if I got to vote on this issue, I would abstain because I don't care one way or the other. On the issue of marriage in general, I still hold my opinion that the government shouldn't be involved. Brad Jennings Sonork: 100.36360 AIM: hongg99
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Is homosexuality progress? :) If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate :) Just my $0.02 worth... :) Paul ;)
van der walt is qualified to answer - googlism
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Paul van der Walt wrote: Is homosexuality progress? No, but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress. You know.. a couple of hundred years ago, strong women were burned at the stake, charged for being witches. Today they are treated as equals, at least by me. I believe homosexual people deserve the same acceptance. Don't you? Paul van der Walt wrote: If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate I'm sorry, but you can throw Darwinism out the window when talking about human beings alltogether. 10000 years ago, a human with eye defects were destined to starve and die. You couldn't hunt properly as they did with bad vision. Even if you did manage to survive, I doubt you'd be the "strong man" in the hood either, and thus you wouldn't be spreading your genes around. That was bad vision and you had a very bad chance of procreating. Now think of all the other deficiencies a human can have which are much worse than bad vision - those would probably not even reach teenage. Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency. There are even people who have severely damaged body functions (scoliosis for instance) who procreate today. How long would such a person have survived 10000 years ago? Now, the fact is that people are and will be homosexual whether you, me, or anyone else likes it. Hence, society will not be damaged by allowing them to marry. How could it? Just because some silly book written thousands of years ago (at the peak of enlightenment ;P) argues against it is not a valid reason IMO. By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant. (Oh, I sound like Terry.. :~) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: but accepting that it exists, and that it's not a plague, is progress True, well said :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Humanity has evolved since then. People have gotten glasses and procreate despite this deficiency True again, I don't disagree :-) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By denying homosexual people equal rights in society, one has to be either very evil or very ignorant Didn't say I was against it, but I was playing devil's advocate... :-) I agree with what you're saying, though :) Paul ;)
Homepage: pvdw.ath.cx
Sonork: 100.33943 -
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Stan Shannon wrote: My child, my discision. Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Stan Shannon wrote: Progress as defined by who? The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not. Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Stan Shannon wrote: Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. :) -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What? Now you're just being ridiculous. I could possibly agree upon that modern liberalism is a philosophy, but not a religion. Liberalism doesn't try to explain the meaning of life, nor are there any tales of creation, deities and end of time. It's not a religion. Period. Liberalism has assumed the responsibilities of a source of moral authority in our society in competition with other, traditional, sources such as the church. As such, it is entirely fair to characterized it as a religion, since it provides a moral infrastructure for its believers and adherents. It has become far more than merely a philosophy or a set of political principles. In fact, it has coopted scientific theory to replace creation myths, its dieties are to be found in government, and it constantly warns of an "end of time" if all of humanity does not behave as demanded. Of course its a religion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Once the child has passed a certain age (18, 20, 21?), it is no longer your responsibility. Then what do you do? I'm sure all your "fixes" will have failed. Either the child is still homosexual, or it has quite possibly taken his/her life. Of course your sure they will have failed, because none exist. Why does none exist, because scientific progress into the subject has been stifled by the religious orthodoxy of the left. The notion that homosexuality is not treatable is a perfect examply of one of the tenants of your religion. There is no scientific credibility for such a belief and is to be accepted as a tenant of faith. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The future generations of course. For every generation, society changes, whether we in our generation, likes it or not Under the careful control of their intellectual masters, of course. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Had society not worked this way, we'd still be burning strong women (witches) on the stake. Yeah, its exactly the same thing. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, you know what? You're gonna lose, as the others before you. You're probably correct, but at least once you guys finally realize what you have actually created, I will be there to say "I told you so". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
