[X] My Assistant

[Big Bidoof]

woo, another one of those big debate topics that every site needs.

I'm personally interested in seeing how many people are of the opinion that a) it's against Christianity, and thus is wrong, or b) t3h homoz r disgutingzzzzz lololol.

In case you can't tell, I'm for same-sex marriage. While something like polygamy would require much larger reforms to marriage-related laws, same-sex marriage only requires substituting "he" for "she," and so on, or the inverse, really. The only logical reasons that come to mind as to why to be against it are the two I mentioned previously, which are in fact both extremely illogical - if a church doesn't want to marry a gay or lesbian couple, it doesn't have to, but has no place forcing that belief on other institutions, and the fact that you don't like homosexuals is clearly no excuse for denying others their rights either.

Discuss.

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

I happen to agree with you. I do find homosexuality distasteful, I will admit, but my opinion is that if people keep themselves to themselves and their love lives private they can do whatever they like and it's neither mine or anyone else's business. I'm not happy with the idea that someone, somebody else, has the right to tell us how to live our lives, and what is right or wrong, as it implies that they're somehow better than you, and frankly, everyone is ultimately equal, regardless of how they refer to themselves.

It's different if you're harming someone. I know of some repressed homosexuals who go around raping men, a friend of mine had that happen to him at college, and a serial gay rapist was recently on the loose near here. That needs stopping. But when both people consent to it and have feelings for each other, and aren't harming anyone, then they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want (and to fuck whatever they want).

Fear of the unknown and mob rule mentality don't democracy make, and it astounds me that we supposedly live in democratic, freedom loving, sophisticated, politically correct countries that still have these irrational phobias and bigotries. I actually have a theory that says the more politically correct someone or a group claim to be, the more bigoted and irrational they are. Political correctness is an insidious kind of social evil in that now anyone can hide behind it and be difficult to spot for what they are. In the old days you didn't need to worry about who the bigots were, because they proudly professed their idiotic and intolerant beliefs to all and sundry.

[DethSlayr]

Okay heres the deal. I find people who are homosexuals completely disgusting.. lesbos.. not as much as men
Either way im against it, god gave men a you know what and women a you know what for a reason and that's how the world works. Now I'm fine with people being gay instead of straight, but it's not somehting i want to see or hear about cuz I LIKE GIRLS enough said

[Lord Raven]

You're against homosexuality because it isn't the norm? That's pretty stupid.

Gay marriage doesn't affect any of us, neither does being gay unless you rape other men/women; similar stuff applies to being straight really. It's really not hurting anyone, and if you're against it just don't get involved with it. As long as they're not completely open about it.

[Lester Burnham]

LONG RANT TIME

Being from Massachusetts, I see gay people all the time. Being in Drama Club, I know many gays. I also go to Catholic School. So I'm basically in two different situations. My school condemns the thought of marriage between two people of the same sex, and as a teacher put it last year, "The puzzle pieces don't fit that way". However, my stance is one like many of yours.

I don't care. Go, get married. God didn't put us on this earth to walk around and never know the beauty of marriage if we were different. Sexuality is not a condition, nor is it a choice. It is your psychology, which cannot be changed unless something drastic occurs. You are born with what you are. If you were meant to be gay/lesbian, fine. If you were meant to be bisexual, fine. If you were meant to be straight, fine. I don't care.

What sickens me is the persecution gays can face at times. They're human, like you or me. Yet, some people have been killed because of it. Because of their psychology. You can't help it. There's no "surgery" to be straight. then again, MJ's black to white surgery isn't working THAT much. You can't "convert" from gay to straight, or vice versa. You're born that way and you're basically stuck with it. Your only road is denial. And that will not work.

I'm coming to you as someone who has faced this, not because I'm gay, because I still fit the stereotype. I'm the epitome of Drama, and everything you see in a gay man is what you see in me. The treatment of someone who likes someone different is so different. It can be worse than race or religion. You don't get made fun of as much for that anymore. But the way the Catholic Church condemns sodomy (which is also a CRIMINAL OFFENSE) is ridiculous.

I'm not trying to say, "go have a public gay orgy" or anything like that. What I'm saying is that gays are people, and the modern world treats them like rats, filth. Even in the very beginning of the BIBLE, gays were killed for the way they acted (mind you, these men were much more radical than the gays of today but you still get the picture). I have gay friends, and I treat them like friends, not like gay friends. I know people have gone after me. I can't help that. Let them.

So I say, I don't care. But just don't rape me in the middle of the night. That's my standpoint.

[Blax8192]

Against it completely. It's mainly in the way they were raised, males are supposed to, at an early age, form a bond with their father and somewhat separate from their mother. The problem is when the father distances himself or that bond isn't formed the boy learns to hang out with girls basically and develops those . . . tastes. Or something like that. I had to watch a video in school on it *watches as everybody cringes* Fact is I live less than 100 miles from key west which is infamous (where I live) for having a much higher concentration of gay people. This is true, my day works down there delivering medical equipment and has guys try to come on to him regularly *cringe* anyway, the fact is, we weren't made that way or we would have both . . . sets of organs and be able to reproduce with any other fertile human on the planet. Not so. There is a distinct difference between males and females and when two cross they do NOT have children. Gay people cannot pass on "gay genes". It is the parents fault, and it goes against the way nature works, being gay period. The way nature works are some of the most powerful laws in the universe and gay people go against these laws, then complain when they get AIDS or whatever else.

Dolphins and humans are the only two animals on the planet to have sex for fun instead of just for reproduction. To put it bluntly this is probably part of the reason why we have gays. Sex is not just for reproduction to us anymore, it's a sport, a pastime, and gay people completely ignore the natural purpose of sex and just . . . Use your imagination if you dare . . .

Politically correct pisses me off. Don't even get me started on politically correct. It is a lie. When I hear the word politically correct I impulsively say "bullshit". America was based on the statement "all men were created equal, we hold these truths to be self evident" or maybe it's the other way around. It means the same thing. We have black people only colleges. We have black people college funds (African American is "politically correct", but they are all Americans, so their only distinguishment is being black skinned) Black history month, etc. etc. and if we had any of this for white people guess what. We'd be racist. If any white person looks mad at a black person, We're racist. If we hit a black person, We're racist. If we hit them after five of them jump out from behind a bush and start beating the shit out of us (5 on 1) and I throw a punch, I'm racist. It doesn't work the other way around though. If they all jump on me and call me a honky or whatever they call me or whatever they do. I'm racist no matrter what happens. I can't accuse them of being racist. It applies to mexicans, cubans (I mean illegal immigrants too) as well, only white people are ever accused of being racist but it goes both ways. Politically correct my ass!

[Lord Raven]

So I say, I don't care. But just don't rape me in the middle of the night. That's my standpoint.

You realize straight people can rape also, right?

Blax, good job at stating why you're against it.
I'm quite straight and I was very distanced from my father until only a few years ago. I can tell you from experience that what you're saying is bullshit. Mind you, he is a good father, but that's quite irrelevant to the topic.

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

Against it completely. It's mainly in the way they were raised, males are supposed to, at an early age, form a bond with their father and somewhat separate from their mother. The problem is when the father distances himself or that bond isn't formed the boy learns to hang out with girls basically and develops those . . . tastes. Or something like that. I had to watch a video in school on it *watches as everybody cringes* Fact is I live less than 100 miles from key west which is infamous (where I live) for having a much higher concentration of gay people. This is true, my day works down there delivering medical equipment and has guys try to come on to him regularly *cringe* anyway, the fact is, we weren't made that way or we would have both . . . sets of organs and be able to reproduce with any other fertile human on the planet. Not so. There is a distinct difference between males and females and when two cross they do NOT have children. Gay people cannot pass on "gay genes". It is the parents fault, and it goes against the way nature works, being gay period. The way nature works are some of the most powerful laws in the universe and gay people go against these laws, then complain when they get AIDS or whatever else.

Dolphins and humans are the only two animals on the planet to have sex for fun instead of just for reproduction. To put it bluntly this is probably part of the reason why we have gays. Sex is not just for reproduction to us anymore, it's a sport, a pastime, and gay people completely ignore the natural purpose of sex and just . . . Use your imagination if you dare . . .

Politically correct pisses me off. Don't even get me started on politically correct. It is a lie. When I hear the word politically correct I impulsively say "bullshit". America was based on the statement "all men were created equal, we hold these truths to be self evident" or maybe it's the other way around. It means the same thing. We have black people only colleges. We have black people college funds (African American is "politically correct", but they are all Americans, so their only distinguishment is being black skinned) Black history month, etc. etc. and if we had any of this for white people guess what. We'd be racist. If any white person looks mad at a black person, We're racist. If we hit a black person, We're racist. If we hit them after five of them jump out from behind a bush and start beating the shit out of us (5 on 1) and I throw a punch, I'm racist. It doesn't work the other way around though. If they all jump on me and call me a honky or whatever they call me or whatever they do. I'm racist no matrter what happens. I can't accuse them of being racist. It applies to mexicans, cubans (I mean illegal immigrants too) as well, only white people are ever accused of being racist but it goes both ways. Politically correct my ass!

Well done Sir. You have just saved me, fresh from coming from an entire evening of arguing with my bigoted grandfather from having to think of a relative of mine as the single biggest fuckwad moron I've spoken to today. I'd say ever, but sadly ignorance is rife and unavoidable, and I seem to be in a position to be nauseated by statements of supreme wilful stupidity with a regularity that explains my partially-self-imposed hermetical ways. You better be comfortable, because I'm going to rip your post apart molecule by molecule, in excruciating detail, and I expect it will take some time due to the sheer enormity of your lack of mental acuity and substance.

So your argument, initially, is that the way parents raise their children, and the attachment that the child has towards each parent depending on their gender is the key to homosexuality? Well, I'm a scientist and I'm empirical so I'd like some sort of evidence to back it up, since you present it here as fact rather than opinion (this just in, opinions do not facts make, and for the record this is my opinion and not itself a fact before you get into a pedantic little pissing contest with me). Some spurious brain-washing video you were obliged to watch at your clearly backwards and dangerously inept school hardly counts as evidence, especially since you conveniently failed to provide a clear reference so that we could go away and seek it out for ourselves. Though that may indeed be the sole saving grace in your entire post, since I think it entirely possible that that video is damaging to the sanity and judgement of anyone forced to sit through it's bilious and ill-informed drivel. I can only imagine the video used to "recondition" Alex in A Clockwork Orange as being more potently warping. I further surmise it was shown to you just after the video explaining that God planted fossils in the Earth to fuck with our collective minds, and just prior to the video showing how all women are inferior and inherently evil on the basis of having gone scrumping for apples way back at the start of time and talking men into doing it with them, thus angering a borrowed God who put the apples there for the sole reason of fucking with our collective minds and then holding it over our heads for all of eternity. I know, I know, it probably didn't put it in quite those terms, but I'm paraphrasing to save some time here.

Flaw number one, which is immediately obvious to those possessed of the merest talents in the way of observation is that there are many boys with single mothers and no idea who their fathers are, and who are not all gay. Indeed, many of them are womanising pigs, with an Oedipus syndrome of such a scale as to give Freud's long-dead corpse a permanently priapic stance.

Flaw number two; many fathers are utter bastards. This is something I have some first-hand personal experience of. These fathers are absolutely the last people who should be taken example from, though many of their poor, deluded sons continue to try. Were they to succeed however, they'd be wife and children beating, home wrecking, heart breaking little shits in no time at all, which is something I'm sure we want all such children to aspire to.

Flaw number three is that some homosexuals, forced by fear reinforced by the public vile ranting of bigots such as yourself, wind up marrying women under the pretence of being heterosexual, and having children with them, some of them who are sons. And these sons, again, are not all gay. You would think, surely, that if parental misguidance were at fault then these secretly gay fathers would be the most likely to espouse homosexual ideals to their child? Apparently this is not the case... quite the contradiction, isn't it?

Flaw four - yes, the fourth, and I'm still stuck on your first point! Many mothers incite their sons to chase women and "sow their wild oats". In fact, women are less likely to be tolerant of a homosexual son than most fathers, unless you're talking about religious nutcases where both parents spurn the child equally. I personally have on several occasions had my mother ask me if I myself are gay, on the basis that I haven't had sex with a woman and not made much of an effort. Woe betide you should actually try and understand your child, as I'm not gay, though this post will no doubt inspire a knee-jerk reaction and explanation that I am and am in denial since I'm defending gays so vociferously and with words of more than one syllable. Actually I'm just shy and very old-fashioned to the point that modern ideas of "romance" do not sit well with my personal ones, and I have more important priorities to boot (though I do actually have a girlfriend, who is a member here incidentally). To come to the point, most mothers would push their sons towards finding a girlfriend and making them grandchildren. This goes further against your ludicrous assertions that being close to your mother makes you more likely to develop a taste for giving other men blowjobs.

Anyway, moving on. You live a hundred miles from a well-known gay community? My dear fellow, how can you possibly stand such a thing? Let's forget that a hundred miles is actually a not insubstantial distance (actually, to put it more bluntly, a fucking long way off), and concentrate on allowing you to tremble in indignant rage and fear that someone might think to love you regardless of your genitalia being on the outside and their's too. I mean, I'm sure that all the folks round where you live are in a perpetual state of wonder and terror about when those gosh-darned homos will rise up in a tide of anal sex and sweep through your town, causing all the men to become queer too and subsequently dead from AIDS and leaving the women barren and no-longer barefoot and pregnant, but neglected and alone. I can just see that as a successful horror movie, so harrowing the concept alone is, and there you are living it as a possible reality! If only it were zombies, then you'd stand some sort of chance... alas, it is not to be. Can't your father, being a purveyor of medical materials, somehow contrive to smuggle down at great personal risk some manner of cure for those Godless creatures? I can't believe that never occurred to you, really, you're going to have to do better than that to avoid a premature demise at the hands of HIV. Have you no survival instincts whatsoever man?!

You mention that people don't have both sets of genitals. Well, it's uncommon I grant you, but yes, actually, some people do have both. And I don't mean transvestites undergoing surgery, or even simple cheap old-fashioned weekend cross-dressers who pose in their wife's clothes in their bedroom mirrors when nobody is around to see. I mean hermaphrodites, so named because of the ancient Greek myth of the demi-god Hermaphroditus who was forced to live amongst mortals down on Earth and who was lured by his own uncontrollable lust to enter a lake inhabited by the Naiad Queen Salmacis, who used her dark powers to merge them into a single being and forever entrap him with her. Not that actual hermaphrodites have any such romantic or dramatic origin for their condition; they were simply naturally born with the reproductive systems of both sexes. It's a horrible life, due to people like you who consider them unnatural freaks and monsters, aberrations that have no right to exist. But they do exist, and are born that way, which implies that if there is a God He designed them that way. And as they're still human, they were designed in God's image too... makes you wonder whether He is really just a He. And yes, hermaphrodites can both father and mother children, again, naturally. Another flaw whereby your argument is sundered and shot to pieces. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.

Right, what's next? Ah yes, the notion that homosexuality is unnatural. Sorry to disagree with you (I'm not really, this is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell) but baboons and various other apes fuck other males in their species. In fact, male baboons have even given birth despite apparently lacking female organs. Though I guess maybe I should have brought that up at the previous point. Not just apes too, but practically all animals can do it. Female rodents simulate copulation with other female rodents, most notably domesticated rabbits kept in a single sex environment. Earlier this year a Russian team of scientific photographers took pictures of a male Antarctic fur seal fucking a male king penguin, and they aren't even the same species or even animalia grouping. This also clearly shows the flaw in your "fact" that only humans and dolphins have sex recreationally and not directly for the purpose of reproduction. Innumerable animals do it, humans, dolphins, apes (especially Bonobos monkeys who will never fight but will instead have sex with anything and anyone it encounters, entirely irrelevant of their gender or even whether they're an inanimate object or a living creature), lesbian rabbits... I could continue but I don't have the time or the compulsion and it would distract me from my main response to your post.

Onto AIDS. Anyone can get it. You don't need to be gay or have gay sex, women get it as easily as men, straight men as easily as gay men, and some children get born with it even. I don't really need to say any more about it, other than it is a terrible disease that can kill anyone under the right circumstances, and is not exclusive to homosexuals. You'd complain about having it too.

Now... your next points, if indeed they can be referred to as such, seem to me to be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and just you flailing out trying to justify your own crap and winding up making yourself sound worse. So I'm not going to dignify them with a reply.

[Lord Raven]

Hokkai No Oni, I know you were in a bit of a rage when posting that and you are finding that post very... stupid to be blunt, but calm down a bit, okay?

[Pumpkin King]

blax: i am completely straight and i never formed a "bond" with my father. in fact, i hardly ever see my father. he's always overseas and stuff in korea or iraq or some other stoopid place.

personally, i find homosexuality a tad bit icky, but there's nothing wrong with it. God has a purpose for everything and i doubt He would create homosexuals just to damn them to hell. homosexuality probably helps control the population (this is just a guess). now that the human species has eliminated or weakened a large amount of diseases, there is less to stop the population from growing so large. please dont get a bunch of statistics to prove me wrong. just say if my idea sux or not. anyway, i am not for nor am i against homosexuality. people can do as they please as long as they are respectful.

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

Hokkai No Oni, I know you were in a bit of a rage when posting that and you are finding that post very... stupid to be blunt, but calm down a bit, okay?

Calm down? I think not. All it takes for evil and ignorance to flourish and continue is for it to remain unopposed. I may have been angry when I posted, but I still consider it more intelligent and better researched by far than the tosh I was responding to, and more cogent too. Emotion flavours, it does not always impede, when it comes to making an argument.

If you can't debate with conviction and emotion it is pointless to debate at all, as you need to have a passion for the subject to want to write about it and for others to feel compelled to take note of your opinions. I make no apologies, and I stand absolutely by what I posted.

And that, my friend, is called integrity.

[Blax8192]

Well done Sir. You have just saved me, fresh from coming from an entire evening of arguing with my bigoted grandfather from having to think of a relative of mine as the single biggest fuckwad moron I've spoken to today. I'd say ever

the sheer enormity of your lack of mental acuity and substance.

(this just in, opinions do not facts make, and for the record this is my opinion and not itself a fact before you get into a pedantic little pissing contest with me)
Whose starting a pissing contest here?

I further surmise it was shown to you just after the video explaining that God planted fossils in the Earth to fuck with our collective minds, and just prior to the video showing how all women are inferior and inherently evil

public vile ranting of bigots such as yourself

Sorry to disagree with you (I'm not really, this is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)

Can't your father, being a purveyor of medical materials, somehow contrive to smuggle down at great personal risk some manner of cure for those Godless creatures?

Anyway, moving on. You live a hundred miles from a well-known gay community? My dear fellow, how can you possibly stand such a thing? Let's forget that a hundred miles is actually a not insubstantial distance (actually, to put it more bluntly, a fucking long way off), and concentrate on allowing you to tremble in indignant rage and fear that someone might think to love you regardless of your genitalia being on the outside and their's too. I mean, I'm sure that all the folks round where you live are in a perpetual state of wonder and terror about when those gosh-darned homos will rise up in a tide of anal sex and sweep through your town, causing all the men to become queer too and subsequently dead from AIDS and leaving the women barren and no-longer barefoot and pregnant, but neglected and alone. I can just see that as a successful horror movie, so harrowing the concept alone is, and there you are living it as a possible reality! If only it were zombies, then you'd stand some sort of chance... alas, it is not to be. Can't your father, being a purveyor of medical materials, somehow contrive to smuggle down at great personal risk some manner of cure for those Godless creatures? I can't believe that never occurred to you, really, you're going to have to do better than that to avoid a premature demise at the hands of HIV. Have you no survival instincts whatsoever man?!

1: no cure for being gay
2: why are you being an asshole to my dad, he didn't do a thing to you
3: 100 miles is quite small when you consider the fact that living here at the top of the Florida Keys, which are all situated along a single road all the way down and are the same county, as well as widely considered to be the same city, only distinguished by the different islands, the largest of which is key largo eight miles long, the smallest being pigion key at about an acre or so. All of the jobs are mainly down around milemarker forty or fifty, it's not that far. You did your homework on everything else, I was surprised you made the assumption it was a long distance without any knowledge whatsoever. I'm going to stop now because I'm starting to get mad and clearly when you get mad in the debates forums the intelligence of your post degrades considerably and for the most part falls into flames, like your post for example.

dude . . . you take the debates forum way to FUCKING personal, I can see some of your points, and where they explain some of my points and make them seem weak or irrelevant, but I hardly felt like muddling through your post with all /\ crap seeded all over the place. You spent as much time insulting me and making me seem like some sort of idiot as you did arguing your point. You're an okay person and all, but you're being an asshole. Plain and simple. Nothing more to it. now I'm going to quote your whole long post, tear out the insults and get down to the bare facts, watch with amusement how much it shrinks, and argue my points. WITHOUT insulting anybody. My posts may be smaller because I don't saturate them with insults, but they are far easier to read and are much more likely to win arguments.

So your argument, initially, is that the way parents raise their children, and the attachment that the child has towards each parent depending on their gender is the key to homosexuality?


Flaw number one: that there are many boys with single mothers and no idea who their fathers are, and who are not all gay.
It doesn't have to necessarily be the father
Flaw number two: many fathers are utter bastards. This is something I have some first-hand personal experience of. These fathers are absolutely the last people who should be taken example from, though many of their sons continue to try.

Thus we still have bastard fathers and sons out in the world today.

I'm sorry to hear about your father, but it seems he clearly passed a bit of the bastard genes onto you, you certainly didn't word your post politely enough to be qualified as civilized. I highly reccomend in future posts in this and other forums, if you expect civilized responses from other people you refrain from the kind of crap you posted here, including that about MY father. Most people wouldn't have responded so calmly or politely.

Flaw number three: some homosexuals wind up marrying women under the pretence of being heterosexual, and having children with them, some of them who are sons. And these sons are not all gay. I would think, that if parental misguidance were at fault then these secretly gay fathers would be the most likely to espouse homosexual ideals to their child?

Did you not just disprove yourself by mentioning they are SECRETLY gay? If they are secretly gay they wouldn't be likely to be pointing at men and telling their son "That guy's hot, I'd screw him" or whatever you're implying.

Flaw four: Many mothers incite their sons to chase women and "sow their wild oats". To come to the point, most mothers would push their sons towards finding a girlfriend and making them grandchildren.

They grow up, before school constantly with their mother and when they go to school they hang out with the girls, not knowing how to act around other boys, where most guys think girls are gross at that age, this little kid will grow up with the girls and as they begin liking boys, so will he

You mention that people don't have both sets of genitals. Well, it's uncommon I grant you, but yes, actually, some people do have both. I mean hermaphrodites, they were naturally born with the reproductive systems of both sexes. It's a horrible life, but they do exist, and are born that way, and yes, hermaphrodites can both father and mother children.

People with that particular genetic mutation are in almost, if not all cases sterile in at least one gender if not both. While a very small number can possibly, theoretically, have children, they are most likely not born as hermaphrodites. If you can provide me with the PROOF which you so constantly demand, I will rescind my mention of hermaphrodites.
The suggestion that homosexuality is unnatural. But baboons and various other apes fuck other males in their species. In fact, male baboons have even given birth despite apparently lacking female organs. Not just apes too, but practically all animals can do it. Female rodents simulate copulation with other female rodents, most notably domesticated rabbits kept in a single sex environment. Earlier this year a Russian team of scientific photographers took pictures of a male Antarctic fur seal fucking a male king penguin, and they aren't even the same species or even animalia grouping. This is the flaw in your "fact" that only humans and dolphins have sex recreationally and not directly for the purpose of reproduction. Innumerable animals do it, humans, dolphins, apes (especially Bonobos monkeys who will never fight but will instead have sex with anything and anyone it encounters, entirely irrelevant of their gender or even whether they're an inanimate object or a living creature), lesbian rabbits.

Kept in a single sex environment. Apparently lacking female organs. So nobody actually "peeked under their skirt" and checked? well, there's the problem right there. These people never even checked and they just decided that male monkeys can give birth. Such compelling evidence, I will however not change my stance because of a sloppy experiment like that.

Who said they (seals and rodents) were doing it for recreation? They had no choice, they were making a desperate attempt to pass on their genes.Craig Stanford, an American primatologist, has challenged the claim that Bonobos are more sexually active than Common Chimpanzees. Stanford compared existing data on Common Chimpanzees and Bonobos in the natural habitat and found that female Common Chimpanzees copulated at least as often as female Bonobos, while male chimpanzees actually copulated more than male Bonobos.

Anyone can get AIDS. You don't need to be gay or have gay sex, women get it as easily as men, straight men as easily as gay men, and some children get born with it even. It is a terrible disease that can kill anyone under the right circumstances, and is not exclusive to homosexuals.

I never said only gay people got it. But it is far more common in gays. For any number of reasons, I don't know, but go to Key West and ask the hospital how many people they diagnose with AIDS per year, then go anywhere in America and ask the same question. You'll see what I mean.

I'm glad you at least refrained from political correctness with your insults though. At least something got through, but you picked it back up when you stated the odd fact or two.

[Zerxer]

First of all, posting with italics and underline is annoyingly hard to read.

1: no cure for being gay

As if being homosexual is a disease..? In that case, being heterosexual is a disease too with no cure.

dude . . . you take the debates forum way to FUCKING personal

Anyone would when someone says some of the things you first said. Also, tone down on the language a bit. I don't appreciate seeing the F word on a forum made for youngsters, especially in all caps trying to stress it more. This goes for everyone else too. While it may not be a rule yet, you have to remember how young our members are. I don't care how mature you are.

it doesn't have to necessarily be the father

Doesn't that pretty much kill your entire point then? I don't see how you can say that after saying that it's due to not having a bond with the father. If it doesn't have to necessarily be the father, then who else can it be? If they don't have a bond with the mother then doesn't that mean they'd still be less gay (according to your next point of being encouraged to hang out with girls as a child)?

I'm sorry to hear about your father, but it seems he clearly passed a bit of the bastard genes onto you, you certainly didn't word your post politely enough to be qualified as civilized.

I thought you were going to throw your points around without insulting anyone?

They grow up, before school constantly with their mother and when they go to school they hang out with the girls, not knowing how to act around other boys, where most guys think girls are gross at that age, this little kid will grow up with the girls and as they begin liking boys, so will he

Eh? I can agree that homosexuals will prefer to hang out with girls and act like them but that doesn't mean that by hanging out with them a lot as a child that they'll become homosexual. Perhaps at an early age they somehow knew they were homosexual and that they preferred those tastes so they decided to hang out with the girls awhile but then there's the boys who do hang out with girls as a child and still turn out heterosexual. Also, growing up with only a mother does not mean you're not going to know how to act around boys and instantly only hang around girls when you get into school. That is also a pretty silly concept. If anything, you could say they'd hang out with boys even more because they're trying to fill that father-figure spot in their life.

Who said they (seals and rodents) were doing it for recreation? They had no choice, they were making a desperate attempt to pass on their genes. Craig Stanford, an American primatologist, has challenged the claim that Bonobos are more sexually active than Common Chimpanzees. Stanford compared existing data on Common Chimpanzees and Bonobos in the natural habitat and found that female Common Chimpanzees copulated at least as often as female Bonobos, while male chimpanzees actually copulated more than male Bonobos.

I know that there's no way only Dolphins and Humans have sex for fun. Pretty much any animal could have sex for fun just because if they have genitalia, they can obviously become horny. Have you never had a dog hump your leg? Even female dogs do that. Obviously male dogs will since males are usually always horn-beasts but when a female dog is in heat, she'll gladly have sex for no reason, doesn't mean she wants puppies.

I never said only gay people got it. But it is far more common in gays. For any number of reasons, I don't know, but go to Key West and ask the hospital how many people they diagnose with AIDS per year, then go anywhere in America and ask the same question. You'll see what I mean.

What? I still don't see how it's more common in homosexuals. If it were more common in homosexuals then your statement about anywhere in America having less people diagnosed with AIDs is wrong because there are tons of cities in America populated with tons of homosexuals. Perhaps the reason you think AIDs is more common in Key West is because it's an island therefore a good place to go to relax and vacation and whatnot and therefore more people are having unprotected sex which, if you didn't know, is what causes people to get AIDs, not from guys liking guys.


In case you can't tell, I don't really care about homosexuals. Like whoever you want to like. It's not like it's going to affect me like Blax apparently thinks by all his cringes. My best friend was bisexual and loved me and yet I still stayed his friend and went over to his house every weekend. Whatever. Yeah he's not my friend now though because I got sick of him being an ass most of the time and he'll of course deny ever being bi for that half a year and loving me but BaS certainly remembers it. lolnen

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

I couldn't give two hoots about political correctness, and if you think my defence of homosexuals is based on my somehow being a bleeding heart, you're quite mistaken. I simply have a thing called common sense, which you appear to lack.

You obviously do not understand or recognise sarcasm. Much of the insults in my post were deeply sarcastic, and I wasn't actually insulting your father, but using a metaphor, one which you clearly didn't grasp. Also, one hundred miles is a long way at any time. The number of commuters or the length of a single road do not somehow change spacial quantity, rather, it is your perception based on these factors that alters it for you. A hundred miles is a hundred miles is a hundred miles, and nothing short of radically altering the Imperial measurement system will alter that fact. It is solid, it is immutable, and it is perpetual. And it is still a very long way.

I don't take debates too personal at all, I do however, throw my entire weight of conviction into one when I feel compelled to take part, and when I read your post I felt very compelled. Because, and I can't say this with nearly as much emphasis as I would like to, your post made you seem stupid more than anything I could ever write. Nobody smears a reputation quite so thoroughly and permanently as the person whose reputation it is. Your post was stupid, bigoted, and vile. That isn't an insult, and it's not sarcasm, that's merely observation that time.

You may find it amusing to take the insults out of my post, I don't mind, as I mentioned I was angry when I wrote it, and I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the feelings of anyone who has clearly no such concern themselves when it comes to people who go against their narrow-minded system of belief. I swore at you, and I don't care. I can handle being called an arsehole, I probably am for one thing, and secondly, it's usually when someone finds themselves being disagreed with by me that they call me it, which lessens the sting considerably.
I'll also just point out that you're a hypocrite, as you said quite clearly (which I at no point ever did) that you weren't going to insult me, and you have, many times in fact. Uncivilised? You're misinformed, if you look back through history, you'll see that as civilisation gets more sophisticated, the more derogatory words come to be, and the more perfectly legitimate words become known as insults and curses. Cunt is a good example of a previously harmless word, so are bastard, shit, crap, and dork. And gay, which is strangely appropriate. When I was growing up it still meant colourful and happy. As for civilised posting... hah... it is to laugh. Most forums are very uncivilised, and it is as a result of posting on internet forums for over ten years that I have lost my polite demeanour when posting. Illegible grunting is more likely to be accepted actually, but I try to post intelligently but liberally sprinkled with swear words to keep the attention of people uninclined towards reading lengthy, formal debates.

Your reply is a lazy one I might note, you've inserted a few lines into mine. You'll notice that mine responds to your one whilst being wholly original, with your post separated entirely at the top. Your way is much more difficult to read than mine, and more tedious to boot, as it forces people to re-read my post again despite knowing what it says, in order to find the small contributions you saw fit to make. So, mine is easier to read, and much more likely to win arguments, on the basis that you can't win an argument if nobody listens to your side of it, or in this case reads it. And the insults and sarcasm in mine attribute something of the satirical to my effort, which many people find amusing and enjoy reading. I did not merely rant and dribble, my insults were crafted very deliberately, and I've got an inbox full of PMs thanking me or agreeing with me, and only one complaining. I imagine you had none at all.

In response to boys having mostly female friends and growing up with the same attractions, that is so much stuff. I had mostly female friends at school, and I took advantage of it to observe their pubescent bodies developing from a close distance. If anything, you're better positioned to become the best possible heterosexual in that you're in close proximity to the female form, and less likely to pick up any unpleasant chauvinistic traits, such as belittling women or feeling inherently superior to them, or thinking of them purely in terms of sex.

Secretly gay fathers historically are more likely to tell their children before their partners or anyone else. And also, not a lot of people are as secret as they might think, due to lacking subtlety. If they were completely secret and unknown, I wouldn't have known such people exist. Nobody would.

By forcing me to look for proof about virile hermaphrodites, you have only helped me in reinforcing my point that it is natural. I neglected to mention the many, many examples of entire animals species that have both sets of sexual organs and can use both of them at will. As for virile human hermaphrodites, it would be worth your digging a little deeper into the subject, as they do exist, but the terms intersexual, supernumerary body parts, ambiguous genitalia, and gonadal mosaicism are sometimes employed instead of hermaphrodite.

When I said that those male baboons apparently lacked female organs, I wasn't saying it was assumed to be, I was again simply using a sarcastic turn of phrase, and your nitpicking my grammar is a wonderful example of grasping at straws. Those baboons gave birth via caesarian, with the intervention of human observers, as they lacked a vagina and contrary to what small children would have you believe, babies do not come out of arses unless something has gone hideously awry. Without such intervention they would have not been able to give birth to the infants gestating in them and both parent and offspring would have died as a result. This has been observed since the 1950s, and it's anybody's guess whether or not it was going on long before any people happened to notice it, though I would say that common sense and logic indicate that to be the case, unless you want to argue Heisenberg or Schrödinger and the Observer effect. I don't advise that, I have a doctorate in physics and am quite well versed in the matter and don't see how it applies in this case.

Recreational sex in animals... now that one is harder to prove on both sides. Both of our points of view are acceptable in the scientific community. However, when you consider that seals try mating with things that are not other seals, I think that transcends mere instinctual progenitative intent. No seal could ever imagine a penguin to be a viable mating partner in terms of reproducing. Futhermore, it has been mooted that since Antarctic fur seals hunt and eat penguins the sexual instinct was tied into the predatory killer instinct. They are both the most basic of instincts, and even humans can equate sex and violence as being one and the same.

As for Craig Stanford, his opinion is but one, and it is one that is much blown upon and disagreed with, at least insofar as the Royal Society stands on the matter. Bonobos are commonly accepted as fucking anything at any time. And considering that fucking anything at any time doesn't automatically mean they fuck females of the species as you assume, your comments and Stanford's observations account to little. Almost all male bonobos have gay sex with other males. How's that for homosexuality being natural? Plus, they'll have sex with trees, pieces of string, tires, humans, other animals, or anything they encounter, as unlike most animals which react cautiously or violently to something new (fight or flight), they try to fuck it. I can't help but wonder how much better a place the world was if people went around having sex with things rather than killing or otherwise destroying them.

America is not the world, something some Americans fail to recognise. Regardless of what the proportion of AIDS sufferers who are gay to straight are in the US, that is a cultural matter. On the African continent and in parts of South America, it is conservatively thought that 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 of all people have AIDs. The state of the African population is nothing short of tragic, and AIDs does not discriminate there. There are orphanages set up there that are filled to bursting with children who have AIDs and who lost both their parents to it. Homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I don't think you're an okay person. I think you're an idiot, and a bigot. Political correctness be damned, all political correctness does is give a shield to people who once would have said straight out what moronic intolerant savages they were. If you can be honest enough to not be politically correct, which you claim to be, at least continue to be honest and admit that you're a slathering ignoramus with more teeth than brain cells and a view of the world that is entirely "uncivilised" and irrational, based on your own fears and consequent lashing out to disguise how terrified you are of things.

I've seen your comments elsewhere about black people, and on public execution too, and if I have time and passion enough I'll give them the same treatment. Vile ranting and barking at things and people because they are different or distasteful for you is evil. And before you dispute that fact, it's worth noting that Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, and every other acceptedly evil figure in history were doing what you're doing, and believed absolutely that they were right and that people who disagreed were the idiots. If your arguments are based on religious teachings, it's also worth noting that the current pope is a former nazi... speaks volumes I believe. The only difference is that those historically accepted to be evil were left unchecked, eventually even supported by other people, and moved onto actually acting on their bigotry and fear to the harm of others. That's why I cannot quietly ignore your posts, and why I refuse to be polite and considerate about them. If your arguments are based on religious teachings, it's also worth noting that the current pope is a former nazi... speaks volumes I believe.

You disgust me, and I have the integrity and honesty to say as much.

[Balmungmp5]

I'm not gonna go into some real depth here but there are a few things i thought i would point out.

First of all the word God has been thrown around a lot here. I'm pretty sure it clearly does say same sex marriage is bad in the bible but, that applies to one religion and i think this debate topic is meant of the U.S. (tell me if I'm wrong since I'm known to be wrong) which I'm pretty sure isn't a theocracy so why is it an issue?

I also think it's funny that the political party trying to prevent gay marriage is the political party that's supposed to believe in a less powerful central government...

Personally gay marriage doesn't bother me. why? because it had nothing to do with me. It doesn't really involve anybody except the people wanting to get married and who ever marries them. I just don't see why it's the states job to keep them from getting wed. (haha maybe parents instead)

It just seems like there are holes in the whole thing...If anyone wants to fill them for me be free. It just seems to me like Christian ideals and rules are leaking into the government which is pretty much what the United States was created to get away from...

[Commander Wymsy]

i think this debate topic is meant of the U.S. (tell me if I'm wrong since I'm known to be wrong)

I'm fairly sure the debate topic is just talking about gay marriage in general.

That said, I have absolutely no problems with gay marriage. Two people of the same gender getting married does not affect me in any way, and isn't even my business. There isn't really any good reason to ban it. A church wanting to not marry a gay couple is fine, wanting to outlaw gay marriage itself completely is moronic in my opinion. If some people don't like gay marriage, then they might as well outlaw twinkies too, because I don't like them.

[Balmungmp5]

i think this debate topic is meant of the U.S. (tell me if I'm wrong since I'm known to be wrong)

I'm fairly sure the debate topic is just talking about gay marriage in general.

well i wasn't sure of how much it was an issue in other necks of the woods so just apply my last post to the U.S. and ignore it unless it applies to your country too.

anyways yeah i have no problem with it. Although i'm not interested in it it doesn't mean it affects me. so why fix what isn't broken?

[Zerxer]

I just don't see why it's the states job to keep them from getting wed.

Well aren't there things that married couples get to do differently such as how their taxes are affected and whatnot? I'd assume a lot of people in the government don't think gays should be able to properly wed and get all the same treatment as if a man and woman were the ones getting married in terms of being able to file jointly and stuff. Just my idea/opinion though.

[Swordsalmon]

If your arguments are based on religious teachings, it's also worth noting that the current pope is a former nazi... speaks volumes I believe.

Pope Benedict XVI was a member of the Hitler Youth, which was mandatory for all male children ages 14+. No-one really had a choice, though he and his father were opposed to Nazism, but that would've likely caused execution.

Now, I'll add some personal stuff into this. I am much closer to my mother than father, and most friends I make are female. Most boys hate me. I have a desire to "cross-dress", as people say. The first person I really loved was male. Does that make me gay? No. Love is an unusual feeling that applies to everyone. No one understands it fully, really. However, I know it can be "connected" with sexuality, which is depending on the individual. Some people are homosexual, some are heterosexual, some are lucky bisexual. I'm a heterosexual, as I take interest in females. The love I held for that one young man...it was not sexual in any way. Love and sexuality can be intertwined, but they are also separate.

Now, onto marriage between the same gender. I'm in full and total support of it. If two guys or gals fall in love and desire marriage, why should they be prohibited? You could cite religious reasons, but that's dubious at best. For example, many Catholics claim that the Bible is against it. False, as any claims are either thinly implied or have different meanings. Sodom and Gommorah is oft-cited as an example of against homosexuality. Go and forget that the people wished to rape the visiter, along with the incest (Which is squicky). Other claims can be interpeted in several ways. If two heterosexual men "lie together" then the Bible would say it's wrong. It says nothing of two homosexuals in the same act. Thank goodness for reading the entire Bible twice, eh?

That's basically what I think. I'm awefully tired, so things might have not come out the way they were supposed to be.

This post has been edited by Swordsalmon: May 6 2008, 10:17 PM

[Guest_Hokkai no Oni_*]

Tired or not, it makes a lot more sense than most of the posts in this debate Swordsalmon. And you're right that love and sexuality are not at all the same... many people have sex with no feelings for who they're doing it with, or even negative feelings, and it is possible to love different people in different ways. Sometimes that can be hard to see... I once had a friend, a girl, who I thought I loved romantically but came to realise that it was more the kind of affection you get between close siblings and particular friends. Which is unfortunate, since she did love me romantically, but that's another story.

I fail to understand how showing affection for someone can be illegal, and marriage to me is the ultimate expression of love and affection. How can that be denied? It doesn't make much sense to me at all when people stand up against it. Politicians are meant to serve people, and most religions supposedly espouse love towards others and peace... and yet, many of them try and ban people from being married on the basis of whether their genitals are both internal or external, rather than one of each. Why don't they ban people getting married because they're drunk and in Las Vegas, or for the sake of some sort of business arrangement, or political alliance? Those "marriages" are more obviously wrong to me than any that come from mutual feelings of love.