Gay Rights

[TW501]

I'm aware that there is a thread entitled Homosexuality somewhere in the 18+ area, but that seemed to be more about gays themselves rather than the gay-rights movement. I created this thread to discuss the political side of the debate, specifically same-sex marriage, equality laws, and hate crimes legislation.

Of particular note in recent news, the US state of Iowa just legalized same-sex marriage, making it the first state in the nation's heartland to do so (the other states with legalized same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships have been on the east and west coasts). Other than Iowa, the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden have also legalized same-sex marriage.

[He's a Mentalist]

Who cares about marriage? More divorces are occurring and is just a waste of time. IF you need a ring to make it known to you that you will be together forever, than do not get married. Chances are you will be divorced in the next 5 years, or sooner. If you are together with someone than be together. You do not need a binding contract to further solidify that you are together. I don't get what the fuss is about... Homosexuals just need to stop following the trend and make a new trend. What is the reason you need to be married under a church? Another human construct.

SIDE-NOTE : The homosexuality thread was locked because vic was tired of it. :suspicious:

[octocheese]

I was thinking of starting a thread a long these lines but you beat me to it lol.

I am very interested in the Iowa Supreme court ruling. Basically they overturned a 1998 law defining marriage as being between a man and woman declaring it illegal under the Iowa constitution. You can find more detailed information here
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/

First of all I entirely support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and I'm really happy about the decision. (I even have good gay friends that are planning on getting hitched now and I'm invited to the wedding!)

I am very interested in the social ramifications of the Iowa ruling. Of the seven member court, consisting of 6 men and one woman, I believe the majority were appointed by Republican governors. As Tw501 says, Iowa is the first state in the "heartland" to legalize gay marriage. Iowa is not usually considered a liberal state, though the last two governors have been democrats and Iowa basically swept Obama into the white house in the primary and regular election, (the state is like 90-95% white BTW),Iowa has had a long history of Republican governors and presidential support.

As the first "non-liberal" state to approve of gay marriage I wonder where the the debate will head. Will other more moderate states adopt the same policies, how will the religious right address this.

edit: @ Mentalist I have no plans on getting married myself (been with my partner, he's a guy, for seven years now) and do agree with you on some points. I think it's just a larger issues of equal rights.

[RipVanRagnarok]

Who cares about marriage? More divorces are occurring and is just a waste of time. IF you need a ring to make it known to you that you will be together forever, than do not get married. Chances are you will be divorced in the next 5 years, or sooner. If you are together with someone than be together. You do not need a binding contract to further solidify that you are together. I don't get what the fuss is about... Homosexuals just need to stop following the trend and make a new trend. What is the reason you need to be married under a church? Another human construct.

SIDE-NOTE : The homosexuality thread was locked because vic was tired of it. :suspicious:

He has a point. Also, most gay marriages also end in divorce.

[Cursed]

No such thing as gay rights.

[Exploits]

No such thing as gay rights.

Only gay lefts.

[TW501]

He has a point. Also, most gay marriages also end in divorce.

No they don't. Divorce rates are slightly higher for them, but that has a lot to do with stress from the social stigma against them and similar factors. To say that 'most' end in divorce is utterly false.

[vgrippa]

I still don't understand why this is still an issue. It is the stupidest thing in the world to be fighting over yet people still fight over it. Since gays are in no way shape or form a different race or species of human-being why do we have to give them special rights? Gays are absolutely no different than any straight person. The only thing that makes them different is what makes them happy. The only reason a straight person likes the opposite sex is because it makes them happy, well surprise surprise it is the same thing for a gay person. Gay and Straight people are still just people and people all have the exact same rights according to the U.S. constitution and that is all that matters. Not allowing gays to get married is limiting peoples rights as Americans or unconstitutional. We are letting religion play way too big a role in politics and they are distracting us from real issues.

Don't try to pull that lame duck excuse that "gay" marriage hurts population growth. That is a piss poor excuse and you know it. We "don't have enough food" to feed everyone in the world but damn it we need to stop gay marriage because if they have sex babies won't be made. Even though that is the American way to keep adding to the problem in the hopes that it will kill itself, it won't work with a problem like that because if it kills itself we are dead.

Also trying to say that having to same sex parents hurts the child if they adopt is just ignorant. Putting a child in a house where both parents not only love each other but also love the child and giving that child basically everything it needs to live a happy life, is a horrible thing isn't it.

Let people get married to whomever they choose. There is no reason they can't live the same happy American lifestyle the rest of use do. We all, including myself, need to grow up and stop trying to interfere with each others lives.

[Cursed]

Since gays are in no way shape or form a different race or species
I beg to differ.

[Fornicaras]

Who cares? Gays are just people with different preferences. If they wanna be unhappy like everyone else who's married nowadays, then let them.

[B_K_E]

To be honest, this doesn't really phase me. Let's just let them live their lives while we live ours right? We all have different interestest, why can't we as a society accept that?

[817539]

Not everyone is as open minded, which is sad.

[metalsoup111]

I don't really see why homosexuality should ever be a hindrance on the establishment of equal rights and/or opportunities that everyone should be afforded, regardless...

[vgrippa]

It is weird how many people say they don't care about gay marriage or think gay marriage is ok but it is almost always voted against. It is like to be socially acceptable everyone says yeah legalize gay marriage but then in the voting booth their pencil slips.

[Cursed]

That's because deep down everyone hates gays.

[Belial]

Bi-sexual girls are good for my goals

All the rest of the flavors, don't give a shit, not my concern, not going to bother to vote either way

[B_K_E]

I like to think of this topic like ice cream, some people like vannila, others like chocolate. Do we look differently at the people that like chocolate who don't like vannila? No.

Also to what Cursed said, does what you said include you? Lol.

[Cursed]

If it isn't obvious enough, yes it includes me.

[Exploits]

I like to think of this topic like ice cream, some people like vannila, others like chocolate. Do we look differently at the people that like chocolate who don't like vannila? No.

Also to what Cursed said, does what you said include you? Lol.

I hate those conceited chocolate pricks.

[airyie]

just wait like 10-20 years, it shouldn't be an issue by then. I mean, look at all the other issues that are basically agreed upon:
inter-racial marriages, explicit nature of rap music, abortion(some what...it is still coming along)
These things are phases...after a while it just dies down, usually when the previous prejudiced generation starts to decline and age

[vgrippa]

I really do not agree with the people that say "Oh I don't care about it because it doesn't effect me" or "just let the phase die out" because that is so incredible selfish and that attitude is killing America. When you say those things you are basically saying the rights of another person do not matter to you, but I bet you do not agree with murder. What is the difference? Both banning gay marriage and murder are a violation of a person's rights but one violation is ok and the other isn't?

[notorious UZIMAKI]

man the whole prop 8 thing in cali goes to show that while people claim to be liberal and open minded, but in reality its easy to exert your prejudice in anonymity. totally agree with vgrippa in that i can't even understand how this is an issue that is getting debated. wtf, i mean its two humans who love each other getting married. that's it. marriage is a social construct anyway, and one that in america doesn't really mean much anymore in terms of commitment and love. BUT there ARE fiscal advantages, ie tax breaks, to marriage that are being unfairly denied to homosexuals. this is our 1964, and there will be a new civil rights act soon hopefully granting equal rights to all of our citizens.

[Exploits]

Honestly?

Let them marry, I don't give a damn. Already the entire concept of marriage has been falling apart at the seams anyway, it's not like we're letting them in on much. Even if it weren't the case, it wouldn't matter. They can do whatever they want behind closed doors like the rest of us.

But I still find the entire concept of gays seriously uncomfortable to see.

[Szarlej]

I don't give a fuck about them too. If they're are not doing "it" in front of me, they can do what they want.

[B_K_E]

That's probably what every male who is straight thinks about this topic. I agree with what you said as well.

[Cursed]

Hopefully all states will follow California's example and pass their own Prop 8. Even better is if there's a US Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

And since pretty much every group out there hates gays, nothing like what happened in the 50's and 60's with African Americans will happen here.

[Belial]

man the whole prop 8 thing in cali goes to show that while people claim to be liberal and open minded, but in reality its easy to exert your prejudice in anonymity. totally agree with vgrippa in that i can't even understand how this is an issue that is getting debated. wtf, i mean its two humans who love each other getting married. that's it. marriage is a social construct anyway, and one that in america doesn't really mean much anymore in terms of commitment and love. BUT there ARE fiscal advantages, ie tax breaks, to marriage that are being unfairly denied to homosexuals. this is our 1964, and there will be a new civil rights act soon hopefully granting equal rights to all of our citizens.

Prop 8 needed to be passed, a single judge bypassing the will of the people is bullshit and of course pisses people off. Now they will have to do it the right way and get it passed as law.

[TW501]

It is within the judicial system's power to overturn laws that violate the constitution. Majority rule can't deprive others of freedom. For example, at the time that the courts ruled segregation and 'separate but equal' laws unconstitutional, most southerners would have opposed it. The courts are meant to be above politics and to make fair judgement in regards to law and constitution. It was decided by a unanimous ruling that the law restricting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and thus struck it down.
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them ... The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.

We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman ... This mission to protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation ... This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more ...

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.

The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

[He's a Mentalist]

The gist of TW501's post is, majority rule is not always the right rule. That is what I was going to say but in a different light. The public/people are stupid and usually follow their own depraved minds, whilst putting aside cogitation (new word!) and following a certain trend because of peer pressure. Maybe peer pressure is not the phrase to use here, but people generally follow the teachings of certain leaders in their community. This is why I dislike "majority rule," because it can outweigh crucial decisions that if went the other way (majority rule) would have dire effects on a nation. I wouldn't vote on homosexual marriage though. I think all marriage ceremonies should be outlawed.

[Cursed]

Last I checked Prop 8 overturned a Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. I don't know what the technical laws and constraints are, but results are results.

[Rosh]

I always thought marriage was sacred, an it should be between MEN AND WOMEN thats it no ifs no buts NOTHING... "GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" sorry if it offends anyone just my opinion.

[Levy]

I always thought marriage was sacred, an it should be between MEN AND WOMEN thats it no ifs no buts NOTHING... "GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" sorry if it offends anyone just my opinion.

there is civic marriage and church marriage, therein lies the difference ;)

I don't think the church will ever accept gay marriage since it goes against the bible (Iirc)

[Aidan]

I'm 100% for gay rights. Gay marriage should be legal, gays should be able to adopt, and openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military if they so wish.

[NoxieDC]

GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE
:rotfllmao:

Oh, gays, yeah sure, whatever they want. Well not really everything they want. O_O

ps: they are weird >_>

[Gohan]

I agree with Aidan completely. I have no issues with gays, what some people do with their lives is their business. I very much so agree with the slogan "We did not vote on your marriage, why do you get to vote on ours."

I'd just like to clarify that I'm not gay. Though there is nothing wrong with being gay.

[Belial]

It is within the judicial system's power to overturn laws that violate the constitution. Majority rule can't deprive others of freedom. For example, at the time that the courts ruled segregation and 'separate but equal' laws unconstitutional, most southerners would have opposed it. The courts are meant to be above politics and to make fair judgement in regards to law and constitution. It was decided by a unanimous ruling that the law restricting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and thus struck it down.


The judges also ruled in favor of segregation laws to start with. The judges also only acted when there was enough popular support, so it wasn't like you had the majority of the U.S. against them either. Not to mention the little fact that it was the law, specifically the civil rights acts, that actually ended racism as a legal institution, so in the end it was the will of the people that got things changed, so they did it the right way,

[notorious UZIMAKI]

good post belial, also to the above, the bible is a parable, just like greek mythology, just writen a bit later. full of racism, hatred and untruths like any other religious texts. also full of a lot of good messages, i'm with thich nhat hanh, dont flame haters.

[TW501]

The Vermont Legislature just legalized gay marriage, making it the fourth state with legalized same-sex marriage (fifth if California is counted). I imagine the religious right is having a collective panic-attack right now, with two states legalizing gay marriage within a few days.

[paradise_found]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo
IOWA! HOLLA ATCHA BOI no homo.

he makes a wonderful point; the majority of our nation's youth has no problem with same-sex marriages. when we take over, it WILL become legal. why fight it now?

[TW501]

As someone in the comments section brilliantly said:
If someone did a documentary on our gay civil rights movement concerning marriage equality, this speech would make an incredible and profound climatic point.

[d3m1G0d]

Everyone says that gays want the same rights that us, the straights, have. Well, fact is they do, any gay man can marry any woman that he wants.

What gays want is a new set of rights. Whether they should get it or not, I don't feel like I can say with certainty, however I see a marriage as a religious sacrament.(I should also point out that I am against civil marriage.) The church whether people like to believe it or not is a private club with their own rules and requirements. This means that to use or be a part of their rituals you have to join their club which you may or may not qualify for(i.e. no gays). I mean they say that they accept you but ask you to change your ways, so you know it ain't where you belong.

BTW - I do not belong to any church or religion. Just giving my two cents on the issue as an objective third party, that is to say no matter what happens the result will have no bearing on my life.

[Levy]

Everyone says that gays want the same rights that us, the straights, have. Well, fact is they do, any gay man can marry any woman that he wants.

What gays want is a new set of rights. Whether they should get it or not, I don't feel like I can say with certainty, however I see a marriage as a religious sacrament.(I should also point out that I am against civil marriage.) The church whether people like to believe it or not is a private club with their own rules and requirements. This means that to use or be a part of their rituals you have to join their club which you may or may not qualify for(i.e. no gays). I mean they say that they accept you but ask you to change your ways, so you know it ain't where you belong.

BTW - I do not belong to any church or religion. Just giving my two cents on the issue as an objective third party, that is to say no matter what happens the result will have no bearing on my life.

unless I'm mistaken, gay marriage rights are only for civil marriage. I can't see any government forcing any religion to approve of gay marriage.

[d3m1G0d]

Yea I know, I was throwing my opinion out there that I believe in civil marriage because of the idea that it is copying a church ritual while allowing people who don't belong to it to take part. Almost like saying, not a part of friars club? No matter you can wear a friar's jacket if you buy one through us.

[TW501]

Marriage is not an inherently religious institution. It's often treated as such, and religions have their own brand of it, but it's not exclusive to religious groups. If what you say is the case (that marriage is inherently religious, not civic in nature), then marriages performed by churches should have their legal benefits granted by the government taken away. Here are a few of the benefits/rights given to married couples:
-Social security pensions, veterans pensions, survivor benefits, etc. for deceased spouse.
-Employment assistance and transitional services for spouses being separated by military service.
-Payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating.
-Sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits.
-Veteran's disability benefits.
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates.
-Joint filing of bankruptcy.
-Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records.
-Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison.
-Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims.
-Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce.
-Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods.
-Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs.
-Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
-Joint tax filing.
-Making spousal medical decisions.
-Right to inheritance of property.
-Spousal privilege in court cases.
When you deny these rights to one group and deny them to another, it cannot be labeled as anything other than systematic discrimination (which is of course exactly what the religious right wants).

[d3m1G0d]

I agree, that's exactly what I am saying. Union by the state should be totally separate from union by the church.

[Feranor]

Being gay myself, my opinion on this topic should be rather obvious.

Still, I'd like anyone who is against equal rights (I'm talking about law, not some religious institution) for homosexuals (or any other group) to explain his reasoning for that.

Hopefully all states will follow California's example and pass their own Prop 8. Even better is if there's a US Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

"Hopefully"? What exactly is your gain from that? How does unconstitutionally (inhumanly, rather) limiting a certain groups rights (and yes, this is esentially the same as the anti-black nonsense) improve anything?

And since pretty much every group out there hates gays, nothing like what happened in the 50's and 60's with African Americans will happen here.

"Pretty much every group out there"? Could you please name some that are not based on religion and whose members have a credible reputation of being intelligent/educated?

[DK]

I agree, that's exactly what I am saying. Union by the state should be totally separate from union by the church.

So is it just the word "marraige" being used in the civil sense you're objecting to?

[Cursed]

Being gay myself, my opinion on this topic should be rather obvious.

Still, I'd like anyone who is against equal rights (I'm talking about law, not some religious institution) for homosexuals (or any other group) to explain his reasoning for that.



"Hopefully"? What exactly is your gain from that? How does unconstitutionally (inhumanly, rather) limiting a certain groups rights (and yes, this is esentially the same as the anti-black nonsense) improve anything?



"Pretty much every group out there"? Could you please name some that are not based on religion and whose members have a credible reputation of being intelligent/educated?

Everyone human in the world fundamentally, deep down in their core hates gays. It's a truth of life that people try to hide with sugar-coated tolerance. Anything else is just people saying it to fit in, attempt to reach the non-existent political correctness, or to make themselves feel better. They all still feel disgust at gays on the inside. The only exceptions to this is gays themselves.

[Exploits]

Everyone human in the world fundamentally, deep down in their core hates gays. It's a truth of life that people try to hide with sugar-coated tolerance. Anything else is just people saying it to fit in, attempt to reach the non-existent political correctness, or to make themselves feel better. They all still feel disgust at gays on the inside. The only exceptions to this is gays themselves.

Or people who grew up around them.

[Cursed]

Funny, one of my best friends is bi/les, and I both love her and fucking hate her at the same time.

One moment I want to have a nice chat, the next I want to break her.

[Xelphus]

Funny, one of my best friends is bi/les, and I both love her and fucking hate her at the same time.

One moment I want to have a nice chat, the next I want to break her.

same exact thing for me.

Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is when you get gays who constantly shove it in your face that they are gay. Primarily flaming homos, or mega dykes (you know the ones)

Not only that, but my friend once made a very good point concerning gay marriage: It just opens up a massive can of worms. To a certain extent, after this, it could get pushed to where you could marry practically anything if someone fights for it.

Another thing that pisses me off about gays in general is one thing that gay marriage violates: They aren't reproducing. I'm not fucking kidding either, a family is a mother, a father, and children (1 or more, i really don't care how many). Gays do not reproduce naturally, which ultimately violates one of our rules as mammals. We need to breed in order to survive.

On the other hand, if homosexuality is predetermined (which I believe is total bullshit, everything that has to do with the mind is choice) by genetics, than this would in fact be a good thing simply cause they aren't passsing their gayness through the generations.

[Exploits]

Funny, one of my best friends is bi/les, and I both love her and fucking hate her at the same time.

One moment I want to have a nice chat, the next I want to break her.

I know someone like this. She is not at all a bestfriend, although God-granted, she is damn hot. I have literally not gone a day without her mentioning outright, in class, as an answer to some question allowed to the teacher, that she's bisexual.

Almost makes you want to go over and cock-slap her.

[TW501]

I found something that's pretty funny. Here is a commercial by a group known as NOM (nom nom...) explaining how gay marriage completely destroys their rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
And here is a video where these horribly oppressed people auditioned for their roles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54

[reiatsudown]

Everyone human in the world fundamentally, deep down in their core hates gays. It's a truth of life that people try to hide with sugar-coated tolerance. Anything else is just people saying it to fit in, attempt to reach the non-existent political correctness, or to make themselves feel better. They all still feel disgust at gays on the inside. The only exceptions to this is gays themselves.

You're projecting.

Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is when you get gays who constantly shove it in your face that they are gay. Primarily flaming homos, or mega dykes (you know the ones)

By "shove it in your face" do you mean how they make out and grope each other in public? Like what straight people do? Or do you mean how they have parades and pride rallies like what blacks and other minorities do? Or do you mean how they run up to you and spit "I'M FAGGY AND PROUD MOTHERFUCKER" in your face, like they never do? Your discriminating point doesn't make sense.


It just opens up a massive can of worms. To a certain extent, after this, it could get pushed to where you could marry practically anything if someone fights for it.

I know a lot of politically correct people get their feathers ruffled with this point, but it's legitimate. There are people who see marriage as something scared between man and woman... very, very few people, but some of them nonetheless. And they're right. If guys can marry guys, anyone consenting can marry anyone else consenting. The reason I don't personally care is because I don't see marriage as sacred, and considering how some of the population seems to treat its holy union (with their divorced and bitterness and cheating), I "think" a lot of people are picking a very convenient time to suddenly button up and act proper. Don't get me wrong, I want to get married and I'm not cynical about it. I just don't have any personal definition of marriage that would exclude gays.

Another thing that pisses me off about gays in general is one thing that gay marriage violates: They aren't reproducing. I'm not fucking kidding either, a family is a mother, a father, and children (1 or more, i really don't care how many). Gays do not reproduce naturally, which ultimately violates one of our rules as mammals. We need to breed in order to survive.

Marriage has nothing to do with your suggestion of family and kids. The two are separate entities. Don't confuse them anymore. Our species is also not in danger of extinction. Duh. Especially because we have the technological ability to actually impregnate a woman with frozen semen (in other words a gay man jacking off can make a baby), so that point is moot too and ridiculous. That said, while you probably don't hate a single father or mother trying to raise a child on their own (maybe with the help of a same-sex friend who babysits when the mother/father is working), there's a difference between accepting those unfortunate circumstances and encouraging those circumstances by letting two gays or lesbos adopt a kid, so I get you. I just don't personally see it as detrimental. I guess it's all how you look at it. This is another legitimateish point. Although like my reply to marriage above, there are so many asshole fathers and mothers making unfit and unhappy environments for their kids that this seems like another convenient moment to button up and act proper.

Are a lot of you homophobes for real? Most of these points don't really make any sense.

[Exploits]

I found something that's pretty funny. Here is a commercial by a group known as NOM (nom nom...) explaining how gay marriage completely destroys their rights.

And here is a video where these horribly oppressed people auditioned for their roles.

Jesus Christ the ignorance almost burns.

Anyone else lol when they said "Rainbow Coalition"? Sweet irony.

[d3m1G0d]

same exact thing for me.

Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is when you get gays who constantly shove it in your face that they are gay. Primarily flaming homos, or mega dykes (you know the ones)

Not only that, but my friend once made a very good point concerning gay marriage: It just opens up a massive can of worms. To a certain extent, after this, it could get pushed to where you could marry practically anything if someone fights for it.

Another thing that pisses me off about gays in general is one thing that gay marriage violates: They aren't reproducing. I'm not fucking kidding either, a family is a mother, a father, and children (1 or more, i really don't care how many). Gays do not reproduce naturally, which ultimately violates one of our rules as mammals. We need to breed in order to survive.

On the other hand, if homosexuality is predetermined (which I believe is total bullshit, everything that has to do with the mind is choice) by genetics, than this would in fact be a good thing simply cause they aren't passsing their gayness through the generations.

It is, been proven, and there is a cure. And before anyone flames me for thinking it is a "sickness" I am just going by scientific development which have indicated that homosexuality is the result of three mutated genes and a chemical imbalance. Whether or not gays want to "cure" it is up to them, but they should keep in mind that if they are going to reproduce, their child would probably have to suffer the same marginalization at the hands of society that they did. On top of that it's already hard being a teenager and exploring your sexuality as a straight person.

[DK]

I am just going by scientific development which have indicated that homosexuality is the result of three mutated genes and a chemical imbalance.

Source? I haven't heard of this...

[pyre-fly]

It is, been proven, and there is a cure. And before anyone flames me for thinking it is a "sickness" I am just going by scientific development which have indicated that homosexuality is the result of three mutated genes and a chemical imbalance. Whether or not gays want to "cure" it is up to them, but they should keep in mind that if they are going to reproduce, their child would probably have to suffer the same marginalization at the hands of society that they did. On top of that it's already hard being a teenager and exploring your sexuality as a straight person.

First, cite your sources.

Second, you can't prove scientific hypotheses. You can only disprove them.

As for the topic, I have nothing against gay people, but I don't believe in "gay marriage", so to speak. Religious zealots bitch and moan about the 'sanctity of marriage' which is generally troublesome, and I'm sick of hearing about it.

I do however believe that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as regular married couples. Hence, the Civil Union bill. Same-sex couples get their rights, zealots keep their 'sanctity'.

Sure it's not perfect, but it's the best compromise out there.

[d3m1G0d]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
a 2007 study on sheep/rams.

but in reference to the "cure" it's fairly recent news I can't remember the source but it was with fruit flies.

[pyre-fly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
a 2007 study on sheep/rams.

but in reference to the "cure" it's fairly recent news I can't remember the source but it was with fruit flies.

If it came from the NY Times, consider it void. lol

[d3m1G0d]

If it came from the NY Times, consider it void. lol

I wish I could call you a liar, but they've been known to have the journalistic integrity of pubic lice.

[TW501]

They're actually a generally reliable news source. On political issues, they do tend to lean more to the left, but there's no systematic bias. The alleged bias is more of a rallying cry for pundits than an actual major issues. They have hundreds of writers, and outside of the editorials I've seen few cases of obvious bias.

[pyre-fly]

Even so, I would've liked to have seen a paper from a research journal over an article from the Times.

However, this is veering off-topic. I know this thread is primarily about gay rights, but do people really believe in a biological basis for homosexuality (in humans)?

[Aidan]

Well, I do believe that people are born gay, if that's what you mean. I dunno about there being a "gay" gene, though.

[pyre-fly]

I meant the latter, but there's more to biology than just genetics. :)

There's a paper I read last year from the University of Stockholm which found that the Neurological structure in homosexual subjects resembled those of straight subjects of the opposite gender. So a gay man's brain would essentially be similar to that of a straight woman, and vice versa.

If similar studies were conducted and the results consistent with the above findings, that would certainly provide evidence supporting a (possible) biological basis in homosexuality.

It would take me a fair while to locate the paper again, but if anyone asks, I'll give them a link when I find it.

[TW501]

I don't know about a 'gay gene' but I do think that there is a biological cause to some extent, be it genetic, hormonal, or some other cause. Upbringing might have a bit to do with it, but I don't think that is the exclusive cause. From my observations, it is definitely not a conscious choice though.

[Belial]

I don't know about a 'gay gene' but I do think that there is a biological cause to some extent, be it genetic, hormonal, or some other cause. Upbringing might have a bit to do with it, but I don't think that is the exclusive cause. From my observations, it is definitely not a conscious choice though.

Every single gay person I've ever met listens to horrible music that while all horrible, is usually diverse. The exception is 80's reject music, it turns up in all their playlists. I think there is a connection, someone start some research.

[Exploits]

Every single gay person I've ever met listens to horrible music that while all horrible, is usually diverse. The exception is 80's reject music, it turns up in all their playlists. I think there is a connection, someone start some research.

According to my research, the Bee Gee's is the ultimate trigger for gayness.

[mashoo]

Gonna have to say this, wouldn't you be damned embarassed if you were adopted by a gay couple? Imagine the ridicule as you grow up. Look, some people are politcally correct and all and won't say a thing but you can imagine the talk behind that person's back. Personally, i'd be embarassed if i was adopted by gays. IF they want to get married, sure, fine, doesn't concern me really but to be completely honest, i'd feel bad for the kid. He/she may be ok with it but growing up, i'd sure be embarassed and would rather have a mother and a father, not two of the same.

[Feranor]

Everyone human in the world fundamentally, deep down in their core hates gays. It's a truth of life that people try to hide with sugar-coated tolerance. Anything else is just people saying it to fit in, attempt to reach the non-existent political correctness, or to make themselves feel better. They all still feel disgust at gays on the inside. The only exceptions to this is gays themselves.

Even I am not cynical - or misanthropic - enough to state such a claim. But maybe it's just because there is no rational ground to do so.

Humans tend to fear what they don't understand / what is alien to them, they tend to hate what they fear and they tend to attack what they hate. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to overcome this particular result of the misfiring of an evolutionally inherited trait. You don't represent everyone in every aspect.

same exact thing for me.

Honestly, the thing that pisses me off the most is when you get gays who constantly shove it in your face that they are gay. Primarily flaming homos, or mega dykes (you know the ones)

You know, there are annoying straight people as well. Projecting that on straight people who are not annoying is just pointless. Also, if you're pissed off by behaviour that you otherwise don't mind as long as it's straight couples doing it (mildly showing affection in public might be an example), you've got a double standard right there.

Let's assume that seeing black people kiss in public pisses me off (it doesn't). Would that give me the right to propagate discrimination against black people?

Not only that, but my friend once made a very good point concerning gay marriage: It just opens up a massive can of worms. To a certain extent, after this, it could get pushed to where you could marry practically anything if someone fights for it.

No. We are talking about consenting people marrying each other. There is no link to anything like marrying your pet, your fridge or whatever ridiculous example you might think of.

Again, under the assumption that I'm offended by interracial marriage, does that justify denying a black woman to marry a white man, for instance? Did the fact that interracial marriage is legal now result in people marrying the Pacific Ocean?

Another thing that pisses me off about gays in general is one thing that gay marriage violates: They aren't reproducing. I'm not fucking kidding either, a family is a mother, a father, and children (1 or more, i really don't care how many). Gays do not reproduce naturally, which ultimately violates one of our rules as mammals. We need to breed in order to survive.

By that reasoning, you should also advocate amandments denying old or infertile couples the right to marry. Just like you would have to take a single parent's children away.

Why is that nonsense? Well, first of all, our planet is overpopulated. Secondly, we no longer actually need men and women to have "standard sex" in order to produce children. And you would have to force couples to actually produce children (without external help in the impregnation process) after getting married or revoke their marriage if they refuse or fail to.

On the other hand, if homosexuality is predetermined (which I believe is total bullshit, everything that has to do with the mind is choice) by genetics, than this would in fact be a good thing simply cause they aren't passsing their gayness through the generations.

You should at least acquire some basic knowlegde about how our brain works before stating such claims. Also, back up your claim that homosexuality is somehow bad (your personal flaws are not a sound argument).

It is, been proven, and there is a cure. And before anyone flames me for thinking it is a "sickness" I am just going by scientific development which have indicated that homosexuality is the result of three mutated genes and a chemical imbalance. Whether or not gays want to "cure" it is up to them, but they should keep in mind that if they are going to reproduce, their child would probably have to suffer the same marginalization at the hands of society that they did. On top of that it's already hard being a teenager and exploring your sexuality as a straight person.

Virtually every reputable medical and psychological institution in the western world disagrees with you. The fact that "society" has a problem with something does not make this something bad or undesirable. Society has a problem, not the something suffering from it.

Again, assume that society would shun red-haired people or left-handed people (which was true at some point in time). What would you suggest the solution to that problem to be? To prevent red-haired or left-handed people from being born?

Gonna have to say this, wouldn't you be damned embarassed if you were adopted by a gay couple? Imagine the ridicule as you grow up. Look, some people are politcally correct and all and won't say a thing but you can imagine the talk behind that person's back. Personally, i'd be embarassed if i was adopted by gays. IF they want to get married, sure, fine, doesn't concern me really but to be completely honest, i'd feel bad for the kid. He/she may be ok with it but growing up, i'd sure be embarassed and would rather have a mother and a father, not two of the same.

Once more, that's society's issue and fault, not the individual's suffering from it. That aside, no, I wouldn't be embarrassed if I had been adopted by a gay couple, though that might just be me. If that was a sound reason to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children, you would also have to forbid black couples to have children in an environment where society shuns black people.

Ignoring that faulty logic, I don't think it's any worse for a child to grow up with two fathers/mothers than to grow up with either one. On the contrary, I'd argue that a child brought up by a homosexual (or any other minority not striving to establish a parallel society) couple is more likely to become a rational, accepting and overall good person than a child brought up by parents indifferent or even antagonistic to the subject.

[Xelphus]

I personally find it both amusing and offensive that you are comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement.

For one thing, black people were actually being oppressed. They couldn't get good jobs, they couldn't get into good schools, and they even couldn't ride on the bus in the same place as everyone else. What was happening to black people was actually wrongful, and it's a good thing that they actually got their rights.

However, gay people can vote, they can get jobs, they can go to school, hell they can even get away with being in the military (it's disturbing how many openly gay people we got here even with don't ask don't tell), and you're bitching about marriage?

Seriously, get real. Gay people have it good as it is. Pretty much the only thing they can't do is get married, so stop bitching about shit that doesn't even matter, especially if you're going to compare it to shit that actually does matter.

[TW501]

For one thing, black people were actually being oppressed. They couldn't get good jobs, they couldn't get into good schools, and they even couldn't ride on the bus in the same place as everyone else. What was happening to black people was actually wrongful, and it's a good thing that they actually got their rights.
For many years, it was a crime to be gay, and people found to be gay were often subjected to cruel punishment (Alan Turing, a scientist who contributed much to the world, was chemically castrated as punishment for homosexuality and was eventually driven to suicide). Even today there are countries where homosexuality is considered a crime warranting prison or execution. There is still a lot of discrimination against gays in their everyday life. Denying them the right to civil marriage both denies them dignity and the rights granted by it that I mentioned earlier.

[reiatsudown]

Gonna have to say this, wouldn't you be damned embarassed if you were adopted by a gay couple? Imagine the ridicule as you grow up. Look, some people are politcally correct and all and won't say a thing but you can imagine the talk behind that person's back

Well yeah it'd be damn embarrassing in this social climate. It'd also be damned hard to be born a black some decades ago. Jewish too. And a woman. Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing gays and lesbians to those examples because they're all inherent traits (as of yet I've seen no reason to assume gays and lesbians are born gay and lesbian), I'm comparing them because the good possibility of their hardship doesn't negate them in any way.

What kind of mongoloid backwards reasoning is this anyways? It's a few steps away from saying, "One of the reasons gays suck is because they are hated by people like me". Shit man. Doesn't make sense.

I personally find it both amusing and offensive that you are comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. For one thing, black people were actually being oppressed.

A few pages back you can read somebody casually state that deep down everyone hates gays and lesbians. That itself dismisses your critique. Also, America has become more civil and rightly sensitive since the shit we pulled against blacks, so while gays can get jobs and go to school they're still considered oppressed, if only in comparison to every other minority or creed or whatever individual distinction you can come up with. So far your particular points are the more nonsensical contributions to this issue and thread (yeah, we actually have a thread asking people their opinion on gay rights; obviously this isn't a non-issue). Not only is there still a persisting controversy about allowing gays in the military, but one of the biggest factors in giving gays/lesbians the paltry rights they already have comes from how you can't usually tell a person is gay or lesbian just by looking at them, like you can with blacks. The reason the two are still comparable is because there is an unjustified fear/hate of gays (not lesbians lol). People are grossed out by them and can't stand to be around them and theorize that deep down everyone hates them. That's the same bs people spewed about blacks and jews way back in the day. Of course we're understandably sensitive to it.

The homophobes in this thread still aren't making any sense.

[B_K_E]

A few pages back you can read somebody casually state that deep down everyone hates gays and lesbians.

I didn't know it was possible to hate lesbians.

Also, awhile back when they first discovered AIDS virus, they began to think only that gays were the ones that had it and transfered it, so that may be a reason why some people are homophobic.

[En]

As long as they don't offend themselves, they can co-exist.

[d3m1G0d]

Virtually every reputable medical and psychological institution in the western world disagrees with you. The fact that "society" has a problem with something does not make this something bad or undesirable. Society has a problem, not the something suffering from it.

Again, assume that society would shun red-haired people or left-handed people (which was true at some point in time). What would you suggest the solution to that problem to be? To prevent red-haired or left-handed people from being born?


Well your argument is flawed for a few reasons.
1) You'll notice that I put the words sickness and cure in quotation marks. This is because gays are still functioning members of society that act the same as straight people except for sexual preference.

2) You can make the same arguments about cancer. Genes act in a way they are not supposed to. If you know about genetics you find that cancer cells are normal in all aspects except that they never reach the phase of cell cycle where they break down. This is quite natural but by your argument we should do nothing about it. Now if two parents with recessive traits for the the genes that determine sexuality have a child, then that child has a huge chance of being born with that genetic "defect". Now the reason we look at cancer differently is because it affects the ability to live and function. Homosexuality doesn't, but both share the fact that they are a result of a natural mutation.

3) And as far as gays having or adopting kids, I think this is a bad idea. If they adopt then they are taking a possibly straight child and placing them in a confusing situation. I say confusing because kids don't understand heterosexuality as it is, therefore placing them in a situation where they now have to see affection between two same sex people is too much. Logically speaking gay parents are not fit to teach sexuality to a gay kid, and I say this after having seen gay kids with straight parents who can't understand what their kids are experiencing and just end up leaving their kids as mental trainwrecks. As for having kids, they stand a chance of passing their genes for sexuality to their young. Knowing what we know now, this is a selfish act unlike any other. Yes it is society's fault, but knowing how society acts towards homosexuality, don't you think that the parents, knowing how it was to grow up differently, should keep in mind that no matter what you teach your children at home they may still be so negativey affected by what happens in school or social circles that they become subject to mental traumas i.e. depression, anxiety, self-hatred and other social distresses.

[Feranor]

I personally find it both amusing and offensive that you are comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement.

Actually, I didn't. I never mentioned slavery, I never mentioned segregation, I never mentioned blacks being denied the right to vote or to hold an office. I only used situations where gay people are discriminated against today.

I just want to know whether you accept my supposed (just for the sake of arguement, of course) hatred of black people and the fictional discrimination derived from that.

For one thing, black people were actually being oppressed. They couldn't get good jobs, they couldn't get into good schools, and they even couldn't ride on the bus in the same place as everyone else. What was happening to black people was actually wrongful, and it's a good thing that they actually got their rights.

However, gay people can vote, they can get jobs, they can go to school, hell they can even get away with being in the military (it's disturbing how many openly gay people we got here even with don't ask don't tell), and you're bitching about marriage?

Seriously, get real. Gay people have it good as it is. Pretty much the only thing they can't do is get married, so stop bitching about shit that doesn't even matter, especially if you're going to compare it to shit that actually does matter.

TW501 and reiatsudown already covered this.

Still, what kind of messed up reasoning is that? Following this nonsense, I'd have all the right in the world to deny middle class heterosexual Christian white male citizens the right to marry/vote/whatever. Why? Because they didn't suffer as much as black people did.

Well your argument is flawed for a few reasons.
1) You'll notice that I put the words sickness and cure in quotation marks. This is because gays are still functioning members of society that act the same as straight people except for sexual preference.

In that case you don't really have a point.

2) You can make the same arguments about cancer. Genes act in a way they are not supposed to. If you know about genetics you find that cancer cells are normal in all aspects except that they never reach the phase of cell cycle where they break down. This is quite natural but by your argument we should do nothing about it. Now if two parents with recessive traits for the the genes that determine sexuality have a child, then that child has a huge chance of being born with that genetic "defect". Now the reason we look at cancer differently is because it affects the ability to live and function. Homosexuality doesn't, but both share the fact that they are a result of a natural mutation.

Even assuming the cause to be similar, that doesn't mean the results are comparable. Not all natural mutation is bad, in fact, it's the very reason why the species could evolve in the first place. I don't see what your point is supposed to be.

3) And as far as gays having or adopting kids, I think this is a bad idea. If they adopt then they are taking a possibly straight child and placing them in a confusing situation. I say confusing because kids don't understand heterosexuality as it is, therefore placing them in a situation where they now have to see affection between two same sex people is too much. Logically speaking gay parents are not fit to teach sexuality to a gay kid, and I say this after having seen gay kids with straight parents who can't understand what their kids are experiencing and just end up leaving their kids as mental trainwrecks. As for having kids, they stand a chance of passing their genes for sexuality to their young. Knowing what we know now, this is a selfish act unlike any other. Yes it is society's fault, but knowing how society acts towards homosexuality, don't you think that the parents, knowing how it was to grow up differently, should keep in mind that no matter what you teach your children at home they may still be so negativey affected by what happens in school or social circles that they become subject to mental traumas i.e. depression, anxiety, self-hatred and other social distresses.

Children don't have a problem with homosexuality unless someone brainwashes them into thinking that it's bad, immoral, "unnatural" or something along those lines of stupidity and unless they are isolated from it (because in that case, the fear of the unknown might result in homophobia).

Of course children are likely to experience "hatred" from others, especially other children, but not only when they have same sex parents. Children can be very cruel to others for being different in any way. Unfortunately, that's just how society works at the present. I know very well what I'm talking about, as I went through some harsh abuse at school myself, though in the end it only hardened me, so I can't exactly tell if others could have dealt with something like this.

[reiatsudown]

Also, awhile back when they first discovered AIDS virus, they began to think only that gays were the ones that had it and transfered it, so that may be a reason why some people are homophobic.

"They" were idiots on the matter then and they're certainly idiots on the matter now. Back when the virus first broke there was no legitimate source blaming the gays. It was all fear mongering and hate mongering and excuses. White people also used similar tactics with the KKK when they claimed fear for the safeties of themselves and their neighbors because blacks were coming into town during a time period when blacks were seen as uneducated, less refined, and more violent and apish than whites because they were being shipped from a less modern part of the world. That doesn't excuse racism or the KKK any more than groundless suspicion of gays' making aids excuses homophobia, and since it doesn't excuse it I don't really the point. People might be homophobic because they're not used to gays, people might be homophobic because they are uneducated about gays and think gays have an agenda-- but none of these reasons seem rational or even real. Just look at this thread. Aside from d3m1G0d most contributors have rationalized their baseless homophobia with nonsensical nonsense :push:, and even d3m1G0d is working with the assumption that being gay is genetic, when I don't think that's been proven (has it?).

[Feranor]

and even d3m1G0d is working with the assumption that being gay is genetic, when I don't think that's been proven (has it?).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zPh97qYd4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bfVvo3dd8&feature=related

Though this focuses on "feminine" gays or "masculine" lesbians, which isn't always applicable (though there obviously are tendencies). I, for one, can't think of a gay cliché that applies to me moreso than it does to my straight peers.

[mashoo]

Children don't have a problem with homosexuality unless someone brainwashes them into thinking that it's bad, immoral, "unnatural" or something along those lines of stupidity and unless they are isolated from it (because in that case, the fear of the unknown might result in homophobia)

no offense, but really? of course it's unnatural. purpose of life is to essentially reproduce. that's the point of life for every species on this planet, it's to extend their species existence. we're still animals in the end of all this. I'm not saying being gay is neccessarily bad or immoral but i still say its unnatural for biologcial reasons. Just becauses theres ways to have children without intercouse doesn't automatically make being gay "ok" for an animals purpose of life. We as humans, are still animals.

[TW501]

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Many animals engage in it, particularly bonobos. If you're going by a standard of not being the most basic natural behavior, then wouldn't marriage itself be unnatural? It's not necessary for reproduction and basically binds the couple in a monogamous relationship when in the wild the male would probably reproduce with multiple partners.

[Feranor]

no offense, but really? of course it's unnatural. purpose of life is to essentially reproduce. that's the point of life for every species on this planet, it's to extend their species existence. we're still animals in the end of all this. I'm not saying being gay is neccessarily bad or immoral but i still say its unnatural for biologcial reasons. Just becauses theres ways to have children without intercouse doesn't automatically make being gay "ok" for an animals purpose of life. We as humans, are still animals.

Well, if Darwin's Natural Selection is true (and it's the only explanation we have), homosexuality either directly assists the survival of genes or it is a by product of something else that does that.

Edit: the quotation marks were meant to express that this term isn't really used literally, not even by the nutcases who think that this is a good arguement. It's just an empty phrase, really, as it's both false and irrelevant, since we don't necessarily derive our morals "from nature".

[d3m1G0d]

Well, if Darwin's Natural Selection is true (and it's the only explanation we have), homosexuality either directly assists the survival of genes or it is a by product of something else that does that.

Edit: the quotation marks were meant to express that this term isn't really used literally, not even by the nutcases who think that this is a good arguement. It's just an empty phrase, really, as it's both false and irrelevant, since we don't necessarily derive our morals "from nature".

OKAY, you lost me. No matter how smart we are our genes still operate because of much simpler chemical reactions at an atomic level, so by your logic (what i take Darwin's theory to mean, is) this evolutionary difference in homosexuals is linked to something that is an undesirable trait that nature is trying to weed out(remember, in a natural sense, homosexuals can't propogate).

That argument is weak, so I would like you to clarify.

What you said made me think of something but it's kinda OT and I don't want it to influence your answer so I'll spill it after you've answered.

[mashoo]

Homosexuality occurs in nature. Many animals engage in it, particularly bonobos. If you're going by a standard of not being the most basic natural behavior, then wouldn't marriage itself be unnatural? It's not necessary for reproduction and basically binds the couple in a monogamous relationship when in the wild the male would probably reproduce with multiple partners.

Ok, if animals can also be homosexuals, then isn't it agreed upon that this doesn't help their species be prolonged? You can argue animals perform homosexual acts and then mate with the opposite sex and i'm sure they do, but i'm sure out of all of them maybe there are some animals that are strictly homosexual. Purely hypothetical mind you, but i think you can partially agree that these strict homosexual animals aren't helping their kind.

[TW501]

Your argument was that homosexuality was unnatural, and I argued that it occurs in numerous animals, so it can't be considered unnatural. The second part of your argument is completely different from the first. With humans that sort of thing is irrelevant, as producing children is, on the individual scale, less important to society than the actions performed during life. Your statement doesn't make much sense in the context of this debate.

[Goroth]

When I first read your opening post, I thought isn't gay marriage is about the gays themselves? Then I further read and got your view on the discussion. I dis-encourage gay right activists more than the gays themselves, simply because I dis-approve gays and their marriages, those activists are people who needs desperate attention...
Regardless of their origin being natural or plain modern age fashion trend shit I just don't think same-sex marriage is something that should remain in the future.

[He's a Mentalist]

demigod summed up my thoughts...

and I argued that it occurs in numerous animals, so it can't be considered unnatural.

This occurrence is small within the animal species below humans. If one out of the millions of species of animals had strictly homosexual animal breeds within it, that still would not make homosexuality natural. The point of this is, these same species that have homosexual animals within them can not reproduce offspring, thus they are unable to pass down their genes, which would make them "unfit." I would also disagree with the notion of these animals who are deemed strictly "homosexual" as being strictly homosexual. There are many reasons animals will have intercourse with another male of its species and one of the main reasons is, dominance. Another reason is, a lack of females within the environment of that specific place, so the male will deviate to a male because it is within its natural programming to want to reproduce. (The latter sentence relates to my earlier statement on not being fit).

[Feranor]

OKAY, you lost me. No matter how smart we are our genes still operate because of much simpler chemical reactions at an atomic level, so by your logic (what i take Darwin's theory to mean, is) this evolutionary difference in homosexuals is linked to something that is an undesirable trait that nature is trying to weed out(remember, in a natural sense, homosexuals can't propogate).

That argument is weak, so I would like you to clarify.

What you said made me think of something but it's kinda OT and I don't want it to influence your answer so I'll spill it after you've answered.

Darwin's theory isn't as simple as "The more children something produces, the better it is."

The title of Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" is a perfect example of this common misunderstanding. The emphasis is not on "Selfish", but on "Gene". Natural selection is about surivial of genes, which is also possible by being altruistic. For instance, even an animal who will reproduce itself can help his kin procreate by assuring their survival. Which is perfectly in line with the theory because the animals around it usually have very similar genes (which was also true for humans in the past).

If homosexuality was something or linked to something undesirable in the sense of natural selection, then why is it still there? Why does it exist in the first place? Why does it exist in a multitude of species?

demigod summed up my thoughts...



This occurrence is small within the animal species below humans. If one out of the millions of species of animals had strictly homosexual animal breeds within it, that still would not make homosexuality natural. The point of this is, these same species that have homosexual animals within them can not reproduce offspring, thus they are unable to pass down their genes, which would make them "unfit." I would also disagree with the notion of these animals who are deemed strictly "homosexual" as being strictly homosexual. There are many reasons animals will have intercourse with another male of its species and one of the main reasons is, dominance. Another reason is, a lack of females within the environment of that specific place, so the male will deviate to a male because it is within its natural programming to want to reproduce. (The latter sentence relates to my earlier statement on not being fit).

Well, then you'd have to define "natural" first. Is something natural when it occurs in >x% of y and unnatural if it occurs less frequent than that? Is red hair an inhuman trait? Is being left-handed inhuman?

And there are animals who form life long same sex relationships for unknown reasons (in those cases though it's not about dominance or lack of females); and there are humans, which also don't engage in same sex relationships in order to establish dominance or because they lack females.

[Kotoumaru]

I don't really care if they'll be able to get married. I don't care about gays in general.

...Until I see one of those fuckers, walking and talking and acting all femminine. I get so disgusted I wish they die in a fire. Why can't they act like - normal? Those people aren't just gay, they are fucking attention-whores, I think even other gays hate them.

I don't give a shit if you take it up the ass, just don't let me know you do with your every fucking move you faggot. Damn, anyways, I'm ok with them getting married, it doesn't affect me, so w/e.

But if they want to adopt kids next.. I'd be so fucking pissed, I don't know how I'd react.

[Goroth]

Attention-whores xD

Very interesting perspectives on gays. There was a blog entry by Aya, stating that gays, lesbians etc are all becoming a part of a damn parade to draw attention. I still say, relationship should be their maximum level of intimacy.
I know how I reacted when a gay mofo came up to me and my pals and asked for obvious directions, my fist almost rocketed into his/her nose. However, my sudden out burst of anger was foiled by my friends. lol. Lucky bastard...

[Kotoumaru]

I mean damn, there's a gay motherfucker in my university. My girlfriend met him and they were like lets all meet up and hang out. He said "lets go and play wii in my house, it'll be fun!". When she told me I was like OK, w/e.

So, there I was me, a friend, my girl, this other chick and the fag playing Wii.. At one point while I was playing a game where you have to skii down a hill, I hear "Nice ass, baby", I turn around and he was smiling, faggot-style. I fucking threw the wii remote to his face and kicked the coffee-table to him. My friend punched me in the stomach and got me out of the house, to not kill that fucker.

My girlfriend asked him the next day why the fuck did he say that, since he knows that I'm straight since I'm with her, and he fucking replied...

"all men are gay, they just don't know it yet".

The fact that I havent beat the shit out of him yet, kills me a little inside to this day.

[Goroth]

WTF?! "All men are gay"

oh we do know we are straight as our middle finger, rofl. No offense to gay rights activists but, like I mentioned this hall shouting out loud their sexual orientation and declaration is increasingly annoying. If there must be gays, then shut their crappy mouths and just go hug their walls or something.

I just pity those who have found life in the form as humans can accept this. *note: Regardless of natural, bio-explanation and genes, i just don't give a f%#^*

[Yoruichi-hime]

"all men are gay, they just don't know it yet".

wtf...that is overdoing it.

I think they have the right to do whatever they want and shouldn't be judged only by "what way they swing". However, fully knowing that there are a lot against their habits, they shouldn't be so bold...

[Kotoumaru]

Don't get me wrong I don't care about the normal gay people that act normal, they can do what they want, I don't give a fuck. But, when someone is walking like a woman, acts and talks femmine, wears women clothes and carries a fucking purse they do it to shock or gain attention. I find it disgusting, it's like those people have no self-respect.
Or gays making out in public. I guess they should have that freedom, since it's a free world and all, but it makes me sick.

[Goroth]

OK, let me rephrase myself to the person who -neg me. My rep points is meaningless as the gays themselves, so I don't mind that. If you -neg me again, ill count you as gay. lol.

The gay mofo that came to us asking for direction was more than a shy one, he was acting all girly and shit, which I found repulsive and disgusting. And on top of that, the bastard tried to be all nice and goin' polite etc... I was like WTF?! After that my hope for peace went down the drain... Gays can be gays/girls or whatever, they just need to get their faggoty asses away from straight people, it's only good for themselves.

[reiatsudown]

This reminds me of that funnyass comedy routine. I have no idea who came up with it first. But the comedian figures: "Everyone's a little bit gay. You don't believe me do you? Here's why. When you're watching porn... when you're watching some girl getting railed by some dude... do you want the girl to be fingered by this tiny baby cock? Fuck no! You don't want the chick to be moaning after some pencil dick. That's not hot. You're not gonna whack off to that. No, you want her to be rammed by this huge enormous phone pole dick. And that's pretty fucking gay." Funny shit.

Otherwise ^^^ what kind of pansy is freaked out from a gay guy, of all things? A lot of homophobes seem scared by a queer. They get hit on or get one of those "I want you" stares from across the bar and suddenly they're flipping out, threatening to beat someone up or storming outta the bar. Grow some balls guys. It's like cooties all over again. Yeah it's weird to see a guy acting like a chick, but it's not as weird to see a chick acting like a guy (hardcore lesbians), is it? Nah. So there's some kind of self-aware psychological macho complex going on here that makes guys feel threatened by seeing a dude act like a chick. It's lame and it's shy.

No offense to gay rights activists but, like I mentioned this hall shouting out loud their sexual orientation and declaration is increasingly annoying. If there must be gays, then shut their crappy mouths and just go hug their walls or something.

I've been over this man. All minorities have pride parades because they are minorities and there are people who are either scared or them or freaked out by them, so the answer is to expose people to their lifestyles or creed or skin colors more so everybody gets cool with it and stops being weird. Most- all?- of these homophobic arguments in this thread have been revealed as hypocritical and nonsensical, so what it comes right down to that homophobes just aren't used to gays and aren't comfortable with gays. 'Makes sense that the solution would be to try and saturate the public and media with gays. Homophobes will get more exposure to them. People will relax, people will better know how to handle themselves around gays...
Abstinent guys who are raised in secluded religious groups go out into the world and are horrified by the rampant sexuality. It freaks them out and they're not used to it, so the first reaction is usually an aggressive "Everyone is sinful and I hate them!" But after a little bit he'll adjust, and before long he won't wet his pants every time he hears somebody in the bar talk about pussy or cock. Same principle.

I just pity those who have found life in the form as humans can accept this. *note: Regardless of natural, bio-explanation and genes, i just don't give a f%#^*

I don't want to call you out specifically Eechigoo, but what you said just gives me a good segue. Because eventually some of these homophobic arguments reach a point where their reason or rationalization is done away with, and once that happens they get down to the core of their homophobia: I just don't like it. I'm not used to it or it scares me or freaks me out, but I don't like it, and I'm relying on my gut over my head. That's why it's so tough to argue this stuff. Yeah I'm one of those bleeding hearts who's proud about how open minded he is about gays, so I'm kind of a shithead here (seriously-- holier than thou "I'm so proud to be open minded!" douches are the worst). Except that's got nothing to do with the price of beans in Peru because an argument is an argument, and a lot of homophobes here don't seem to have much of anything but their gut.

[Kotoumaru]

Yeah I'm a homophobe pansie with no balls because I find two dudes dressed up like girls, talking and acting like girls, making out and play a game of grab-ass in public totally disgusting.
And cause I get mad when a gay person compliments my ass. Yeah, so they are apparently more normal than me.
You on the other hand that doesn't mind all that, have more balls and might like being complimented for your behinds by another male. That's cool..Go hang out and polish your nails while reading Cosmopolitan.

I should go see a doctor right away, I'm a homophobic pansie with serious issues, I find a man fucking a man sick!

Ditch this bullshit.

Feel free to edit/delete the post again if you think it's out of place. Idc

[TW501]

This reminds me of that funnyass comedy routine. I have no idea who came up with it first. But the comedian figures: "Everyone's a little bit gay. You don't believe me do you? Here's why. When you're watching porn... when you're watching some girl getting railed by some dude... do you want the girl to be fingered by this tiny baby cock? Fuck no! You don't want the chick to be moaning after some pencil dick. That's not hot. You're not gonna whack off to that. No, you want her to be rammed by this huge enormous phone pole dick. And that's pretty fucking gay." Funny shit.

I believe it was Ron White who told that joke, or at least a variation of it. Excellent post btw, you make very good points.

[Feranor]

@Kotoumaru/Eechigoo

Wow, you guys seem to have some serious aggression problems. But you provide a very fitting example of homophobia. Completely baseless fear and consequential hatred.

There's just too many people in desperate need of a how-to manual to life. Here's a start, anyway:

1. Question everything, most of all our own thoughts/actions.
2. Check whether your thoughts/actions are rational.
3. If they fail that test, discard them.

Seriously, that alone makes life so much better.

[Kotoumaru]

Wow, thanks!

With your easy to follow manual I now have a fighting chance to becoming a proper human being! Ok. I'm healed, bring me a gay, I'll kiss him right on the lips!

[Wras]

Seeing someone gay "act gay" with the voice, the gestures, and the dress doesn't bother me at all. People express themselves and these people are filling something of a stereotype just like everyone else. As for adopting children? Fine, it's the same argument for marriage: I'd rather see two gay men/women adopt a kid because they want to our out of love as opposed to a couple who got drunk and knocked up or people who marry and be miserable. Everyone has the right to be as happy or miserable as they let themselves be.

And no, you're not a homophobic person for being proud of being straight; if you find gays acting gay disgusting, then simply avoid it. I've been complimented by gay men before, I've been complimented by straight men before, I didn't notice a freaking difference. Then again, I only know a few gay guys so I haven't had any experiences that make me uncomfortable.

[Fatstogey]

I couldnt care less. If they wanna marry, who cares? IDK i dont see it happening because marriage is a religious institution. And those motherfuckers are just plain crazy.

I dont have a problem with gay people. HOwever obviously gay females dont bother me as much as males do. As most feel. But i think thats cause a hetero male more identifies with a homo female. Because the male is also attracted to females. So there is more understanding there. Just like how women would be more understanding of a gay male because they too are attracted to males.

i.e. seeing 2 chicks make out is hot. And seeing 2 dudes making out is gross. lol

Its not cause i have a problem with them being gay. Its just cause it be disgustinng for me to kiss a dude. So i feel the same way if i see it. But its not to say that i hate them.

Tons of people do things that i think are disgusting. I dotn look down at them for it. I just dont like to kiss dudes or see 2 dudes kissing.

It doesnt look right to me. But thats the persons choice. If a dude wants to suck a dick? Go for it. Id just prefer not to see it. lol

I have been approached by gay dudes before. And my friends have called me gay because of my reaction. But for me, lol, idk why but I like the fact that anyone wants me. LOL Just cause i dont want the dude, im still flattered that he wants me. lol I dont see any reason to be mean to them for it.

I had a gay dude grab my ass before. My friends would get really pissed about it. But im just like "dont you wish you could get some of this." lol

I dont like homosexuality between two males. I find it simply disgusting. But i dont judge the person based on what they like to do.

Yes i call my friends gay. And a fag. I use all the derogatory terminology but i dont hate them.

Im a firm believer in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a dick makes you happy? Go for it dude, lol. Fuck what i think about it. And everyone else.

[reiatsudown]

You on the other hand that doesn't mind all that, have more balls and might like being complimented for your behinds by another male. That's cool..Go hang out and polish your nails while reading Cosmopolitan.

You're overreacting. But I probably started it by calling you a pussy for being afraid of a gay.
Check this out below...

And no, you're not a homophobic person for being proud of being straight; if you find gays acting gay disgusting, then simply avoid it. I've been complimented by gay men before, I've been complimented by straight men before, I didn't notice a freaking difference. Then again, I only know a few gay guys so I haven't had any experiences that make me uncomfortable.

Obviously it's cool and fine if somebody isn't comfortable sitting there watching two gays have sex. I'm not comfortable sitting there watching my parents have sex, so it'd take a huge flowerpower asshole idiot to go "You're being close-minded reiatsudown, just remember that it's an act of love. Stop being so sensitive". And I think- not positive- that's what Kotoumaru is pretending I'm doing. I said pretending because I doubt he actually assumes I'm being that much of a douche. Also, because I'm sure he knows that if I see my parents having sex my reaction isn't "I'm gonna beat the shit out of them!"

Most of the homophobic mindsets here can't be happy with "live and let live as long as a gay doesn't hang a schlong in front of my face and demands I suck it." You know why? Because even the most flaming queen doesn't hang a schlong in front of your face and demand you suck it. Nobody is actually getting gay shoved in their face, and people only think they are if they're being oversensitive for whatever reason. It's just not happening in America. Not in society, not in community, not even in the media. Wherever you look, nobody is actually getting gay shoved in their face. There are threads like this one and news stories that are stamped with !!GAY!!, and that's because the topic of homosexuality is bigger than actual homosexuality. Everybody knows this. What you're getting shoved in your face is the topic, and that's not necessarily the fault of gays themselves. It the fault of sensationalism and controversy. Don't let it feed your fire and rage towards gays. Instead go yell at the sensationalist media and the controversy-loving reporters.

The bottom line is that you're all living in an environment where every minority is still a minority, and you're complaining about being forced to witness their lifestyles. That's like me bitching about Satan invading my well to do Christian neighborhood because one house out of three thousand has a car with flames on it. There's no agenda guys. You don't have to walk down the street fending off queers in speedos every day of the week either. You've never had to, ever in your life. And you homophobes know that nobody here is telling you to suck another dude's cock, or to even be okay with wading through a sea of naked butt-fucking gays on your way to sunday church. Don't flail over-exaggerations when you're called out, and back up your acceptance of gays by adding "...as long as I don't have to make out with them!" Duh.

You're being drama queens.

edit:
What Fatstogey just posted above me? Is cool. And everyone's cool with that attitude. Gay dudes kissing is weird to watch, absolutely, and so what if it is? That attitude is not the attitude of those two earlier guys, and I don't want to see them coming back here pretending their posts should have been taken as similar sentiments about gays.

[Rosh]

When I first read your opening post, I thought isn't gay marriage is about the gays themselves? Then I further read and got your view on the discussion. I dis-encourage gay right activists more than the gays themselves, simply because I dis-approve gays and their marriages, those activists are people who needs desperate attention...
Regardless of their origin being natural or plain modern age fashion trend shit I just don't think same-sex marriage is something that should remain in the future.

I agree Eechi same sex marriage is something I dont want to see in the future aswell and with being said I dont care much for the gay activists aswell.

[redfable]

if you are gay that's what you wanted to do. i dont care i you want to marry another gay person

[Yoruichi-hime]

I think gays, heteros are all the same since we're all human. Everybody should have the right to do whatever they feel like doing. Thing is, your right extends until the other's starts. For instance, some people don't like looking at gay people making out in public or showing off . In these case gay people shouldn't go over their limit doing whatever they want although the rest of the crowd doesnt like it. It just pumps up anti-gay reactions thus elongate the time needed for all society to accept gayness. I think gays should slow down and the others should cool down and especially not intentionally make their own children hate gays...let them have their own stay on this matter.
On the gay marriage thing i am pro. They have the right to marry whomever they want and personally i think marriage has lost its religious aspects in most societies(it is just a popular way to make relationships more official) so i don't see gay marriage as a negative thing.
About them adopting kids...i have some second thoughts on this...because that would hurt the child. Society is still very hostile on the gay issue and those children would feel like outcasts...they would feel bad why they don't have a mom and dad but only two moms or two daddies. They would probably be preys for bullies and so on.
As an overall, i think gay rights need time to be completely achieved in harmony with the rest of the non-gay population.

[dynamo]

if you are gay that's what you wanted to do. i dont care i you want to marry another gay person

Aaaand we have a winner. If they want to be gay, let them be gay, I don't care =] As for dealing with gays, unless they touch you in a way you don't like (in which case physical action is fair game imo), let them be. More on topic (marriage), just let them do it. Personally I don't see what the fuss is about because you shouldn't need a ring as proof of loyalty, but eh how is it affecting you that other people are getting married.

[He's a Mentalist]

Well, then you'd have to define "natural" first. Is something natural when it occurs in >x% of y and unnatural if it occurs less frequent than that? Is red hair an inhuman trait? Is being left-handed inhuman?

I think I already established what natural was... the norm of every organism on this planet. The norm is currently heterosexuality (in this case), because it is meant to reproduce offspring. I don't think females developed a vagina just so it would not be used by the insertion of a male penis. Male penises are mechanically incompatible with male butts. The natural way is penis in vagina. I tried to not be blunt about this but I guess I had to.

And there are animals who form life long same sex relationships for unknown reasons (in those cases though it's not about dominance or lack of females); and there are humans, which also don't engage in same sex relationships in order to establish dominance or because they lack females.

Jail...

[Feranor]

@reiatsudown/fatstogey

Right on. No one asks you to enjoy watching gay sex, just to realise that it doesn't concern you anyway, which you apparently do. I don't mind the fact that there are people having straight sex and the very idea of hating them (or taking any kind of unfriendly stance for that matter) because of that is simply ridiculous.

I think I already established what natural was... the norm of every organism on this planet. The norm is currently heterosexuality (in this case), because it is meant to reproduce offspring. I don't think females developed a vagina just so it would not be used by the insertion of a male penis. Male penises are mechanically incompatible with male butts. The natural way is penis in vagina. I tried to not be blunt about this but I guess I had to.

That's where I differ. It's not about producing children, it's about survival of genes. Reproduction is the main means to do that (hence the hetereosexual majority), but homosexual members of a tribe/pack/whatever can also contribute to the survival of the genes of their kinship (which are similar to their own in this case).

Jail...

Jail is unnatural (sorry, couldn't resist).

[DarkBunny]

did you guys forget that gays can still have kids?using invitro fertilisation and i agree with feranor,its not just about reproduction

[He's a Mentalist]

did you guys forget that gays can still have kids?using invitro fertilisation and i agree with feranor,its not just about reproduction

I am just arguing what is natural, although you and feranor are correct about that. To add to that a female mouse had her own cells taken from her (all the scientific stuff added here), and had a baby. Possibilities are endless now given the scientific advancements. While I agree with that position, I am simply denoting that it is not exactly natural...

Jail is unnatural (sorry, couldn't resist).

Au contraire. Jail is not exactly unnatural because it supports the theory that males will deviate to other males when there are little to no females within the community. It also shows that males will assert that they are the dominant ones within that community. I will post a video to further support my own reasoning....

077UtUWGQOA

This guy explains that since there are no females within jail that men are subjected to male on male encounters. Males view another males ass, not as male, but as a female vagina. They facilitate their own sexual desire by having sex with other males and performing acts with other males all the while thinking that they are females. It is also a display of dominance within jail as well, that is why some males tend to get raped in jail.

[DarkBunny]

I am just arguing what is natural, although you and feranor are correct about that. To add to that a female mouse had her own cells taken from her (all the scientific stuff added here), and had a baby. Possibilities are endless now given the scientific advancements. While I agree with that position, I am simply denoting that it is not exactly natural...



Au contraire. Jail is not exactly unnatural because it supports the theory that males will deviate to other males when there are little to no females within the community. It also shows that males will assert that they are the dominant ones within that community. I will post a video to further support my own reasoning....

077UtUWGQOA



This guy explains that since there are no females within jail that men are subjected to male on male encounters. Males view another males ass, not as male, but as a female vagina. They facilitate their own sexual desire by having sex with other males and performing acts with other males all the while thinking that they are females. It is also a display of dominance within jail as well, that is why some males tend to get raped in jail.

yeah i'm not arguing whether its natural or not,i was just putting it out there and yeah science has improved so much these days i mean cloning is almost possible now.yeah thats true as well,in order to survive hellish place known as jail you must show your strength,you must prove who is the dominant male one of those ways is raping your cellmates

[Feranor]

I am just arguing what is natural, although you and feranor are correct about that. To add to that a female mouse had her own cells taken from her (all the scientific stuff added here), and had a baby. Possibilities are endless now given the scientific advancements. While I agree with that position, I am simply denoting that it is not exactly natural...



Au contraire. Jail is not exactly unnatural because it supports the theory that males will deviate to other males when there are little to no females within the community. It also shows that males will assert that they are the dominant ones within that community. I will post a video to further support my own reasoning....

077UtUWGQOA

This guy explains that since there are no females within jail that men are subjected to male on male encounters. Males view another males ass, not as male, but as a female vagina. They facilitate their own sexual desire by having sex with other males and performing acts with other males all the while thinking that they are females. It is also a display of dominance within jail as well, that is why some males tend to get raped in jail.

We seem to be talking about different things. I'm talking about homosexuality as a sexual orientation. You're seemingly talking about "pretending to have sex with a female even though it's in fact a male". Of course some males will start humping the next best thing when they can't get the best. But what is your point, then? Unless every animal/human having sex with its own gender does so due to a lack of members of the other sex (which is simply not the case), I don't see where you're getting at with this.

Some gays/lesbians might have sex with women/men if there were no other men/women available for a long period of time, but that doesn't prove anything either. Except that sexuality is a rather strong urge.

Anyway, whether it's natural or not is irrelevant to the question whether homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. The problem here is that there really are no sound reasons to deny them these rights, yet a lot of people still want to do just that.

[DarkBunny]

to be honest i don't really care if they want to get married,it really doesn't bother me they should be entitled to the same rights as someone who is heterosexual

[Ash]

faggots

[Ash]

faggots

[DarkBunny]

um ash thats not contributing,thats just showing you have nothing intelligent to say,what have you got against gays?

[Ash]

your mother

[DarkBunny]

that is a terrible comeback<.<anyway i have said my piece on this issue for the night

[Rosh]

Tossing the salad thats gross lol

[Ash]

faggots have no rights, they gave them up for bum secks

[DarkBunny]

your such a biggot

[Ash]

yeah well atleast jesus loves me

[DarkBunny]

this is not a religious debate<.<

[Ash]

Faggots and Jesus go hand n hand, except you know Jesus would never touch a faggot with his hands. He would need heavy duty AIDS repelling gloves.

[Kotoumaru]

Hahaha, that's some funny shit right there.

[Vic]

omg ash lol. typical homo thread on BE

[kochito22]

yeah well atleast jesus loves me

lmao

[Paragon]

faggots have no rights, they gave them up for bum secks

LOL!!!

Wow, so this thread suddenly became interesting.

[Cursed]

Ash just derailed a bullet train of a thread with a single word.

[DarkBunny]

yep one she likes to use a lot LOL

[Kotoumaru]

I now find this thread more to my liking!

Until they start posting studies about homosexuals again.

[He's a Mentalist]

The problem here is that there really are no sound reasons to deny them these rights, yet a lot of people still want to do just that.

You type as if homosexuals have no rights. The only right I see them not having is freedom to marry which is just one right. Don't extrapolate the situation.

Some gays/lesbians might have sex with women/men if there were no other men/women available for a long period of time, but that doesn't prove anything either. Except that sexuality is a rather strong urge.

Some people can go long periods without ever having sex or masturbating, whereas others cannot. I would not say sexual desire is a strong urge in every individual just a natural programming that some individuals cannot break free of which is natural. It proves to state that when there is a lack of females males will deviate to other males. I use jail as my example to support my case for the reasoning behind animal homosexuality. It further illustrates that male on male encounters in the wild could be due to either dominance, lack of females, or natural programming. In either case it still stands that my own reasoning behind homosexuality being "unnatural" is sound. That was my point.

But what is your point, then? Unless every animal/human having sex with its own gender does so due to a lack of members of the other sex (which is simply not the case), I don't see where you're getting at with this.

^^^ The above...

Something from national geographic:

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Lists a few animal species as if the practice is prevalent in the whole kingdom. This is a common fallacy amongst these researchers.

[Ash]

Top 5 things I hate about faggots

5. The way they walk, like they're some princess with a stick or in this case a dick up their butt
4. The way they speak. I can already see by the hair gel and tight pants your a faggot I don't need the shrill faggot accent so drop that fake shit you werent born with faggot tones in your voice.
3. The way they dress. Tight clothes are not for men, Stop it.
2. Fag Hag entourage. Fuck you all.
1. They all have AIDS. UNCLEAN! UNLCEAN!

[DarkBunny]

oh really?heterosexual also get AIDS so thats not entirely correct is it now?

[Ash]

They only get them when they come in contact with faggots, it's an airborn disease you know.

[He's a Mentalist]

Monkeys seem to be the primary aids provider...

[DarkBunny]

you can also get AIDS from sharing needles

[Ash]

This isnt about evolution keep ur animals out of here bitch

[Feranor]

You type as if homosexuals have no rights. The only right I see them not having is freedom to marry which is just one right. Don't extrapolate the situation.

I wasn't necessarily referring to the status quo, rather to what quite a number of people want it to be.

Some people can go long periods without ever having sex or masturbating, whereas others cannot. I would not say sexual desire is a strong urge in every individual just a natural programming that some individuals cannot break free of which is natural. It proves to state that when there is a lack of females males will deviate to other males. I use jail as my example to support my case for the reasoning behind animal homosexuality. It further illustrates that male on male encounters in the wild could be due to either dominance, lack of females, or natural programming. In either case it still stands that my own reasoning behind homosexuality being "unnatural" is sound. That was my point.

Yes, but that is not homosexuality as a sexual orientation. Those guys in jail won't be looking for other men once/if they get out. But there are homosexual animals exclusively mating with their own sex, not because of a lack of females or in order to establish a pecking order.

[Ash]

Feranor we all know you want a bum rager right now don't hide it

[DarkBunny]

This isnt about evolution keep ur animals out of here bitch

i agree with you here,were not talking about evolution,its more about same sex marriage which has escalated into a debate about AIDS

[Kotoumaru]

I was having fun with the last posts man, why did you start with the studies again...

Ok, we get it, animals are homosexual too, so what? It's normal? I've watched a dog eat its own shit too, so what? Is that normal?

Go be gay and have all the rights in the world, who cares, just don't be like GAY, wearing pink tights, calling everybody girlfriend and french-kissing them. It's sick. It's disgusting.

I'm sure the 99% of the gays, you can't even tell that they are, cause they act normal, like guys. And that's fine by me. I like not knowing.

[Ash]

ignorance is bliss

[He's a Mentalist]

Yes, but that is not homosexuality as a sexual orientation. Those guys in jail won't be looking for other men once/if they get out. But there are homosexual animals exclusively mating with their own sex, not because of a lack of females or in order to establish a pecking order.

I'd like to see this research if you do not mind posting it...

Yes, but that is not homosexuality as a sexual orientation.

My previous posts should give you insight into this...

[DarkBunny]

I was having fun with the last posts man, why did you start with the studies again...

Ok, we get it, animals are homosexual too, so what? It's normal? I've watched a dog eat its own shit too, so what? Is that normal?

Go be gay and have all the rights in the world, who cares, just don't be like GAY, wearing pink tights, calling everybody girlfriend and french-kissing them. It's sick. It's disgusting.

I'm sure the 99% of the gays, you can't even tell that they are, cause they act normal, like guys. And that's fine by me. I like not knowing.

agreed^_____________________^yes there is nothing normal about a dog eating its own shit LOL

[Ash]

I bet you'd like to see more than just research you faggot loving jew

[DarkBunny]

I bet you'd like to see more than just research you faggot loving jew
he's jewish? O_O

[Ash]

He is now. Somebody break out the gas chamber.

[Feranor]

I'd like to see this research if you do not mind posting it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[dynamo]

This is truly amazing debate, but guys this video proves why homosexuality is wrong, to be honest. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

[Kotoumaru]

He is Nexiox right? What did you expect?

I rest my case.

EDIT: Hahahaha at the video!

[Ash]

You know there's something wrong when you have links to faggot animals.

[kochito22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Alright. Animals can be homosexuals. Should two male penguins be given a marriage license?

[DarkBunny]

whoa this thread has everything,gay bashers,biggots,evolution,AIDS and anti-semetic remarks woot LOL

[d3m1G0d]

Hey Ash, look up reaction formation.

[Feranor]

Alright. Animals can be homosexuals. Should two male penguins be given a marriage license?

No, not unless heterosexual penguin couples can get one too.

[Ash]

Hey Ash, look up reaction formation.

hey faggot do it urself

[kochito22]

No, not unless heterosexual penguin couples can get one too.

If humans can, why can't penguins?

[DarkBunny]

No, not unless heterosexual penguin couples can get one too.
wouldn't they have to establish a marriage licence for animals in general,not just gay or straight penguins

[d3m1G0d]

If humans can, why can't penguins?

Opposable thumbs for one and those lazy bastards have yet to discover fire or the internal combustion engine.

[Kotoumaru]

Animals aren't exclusively homosexual. They engage in homosexual acts because of hormone surplus or to like practice or something. I don't know.

You know what the difference is? We have common sense, logic, morals. Animals eat their own shit, they jump off cliffs, they chase their own fucking tail! So fucking what?
Are you fucking serious suggesting just cause animals do it, it's normal? It's not. It's an anomaly in nature. But, that's OK, go be gay, just don't fucking parade it.

How do you dumbasses manage to breathe?

[kochito22]

Animals aren't exclusively homosexual. They engage in homosexual acts because of hormone surplus or to like practice or something. I don't know.

You know what the difference is? We have common sense, logic, morals. Animals eat their own shit, they jump off cliffs, they chase their own fucking tail! So fucking what?
Are you fucking serious suggesting just cause animals do it, it's normal? It's not. It's an anomaly in nature. But, that's OK, go be gay, just don't fucking parade it.

How do you dumbasses manage to breathe?

Lol humans jump off cliffs, cut themselves, and burn themselves.

[DarkBunny]

Animals aren't exclusively homosexual. They engage in homosexual acts because of hormone surplus or to like practice or something. I don't know.

You know what the difference is? We have common sense, logic, morals. Animals eat their own shit, they jump off cliffs, they chase their own fucking tail! So fucking what?
Are you fucking serious suggesting just cause animals do it, it's normal? It's not. It's an anomaly in nature. But, that's OK, go be gay, just don't fucking parade it.

How do you dumbasses manage to breathe?
agreed^_________________________^were smarter than them,we understand logic,intelligence,the ability to understand right from wrong,unlike animals who seem to experiment.also agreed with the post above humans also do that,we burn ourselves,cut ourselves,overdose,jump off cliffs,have drunk sex etc

[Ash]

Parade. We have a gay pride parade in my city. I went last year. I asked my friends to go to the beach and they said ok, little did I know the gay parade was going down the same street the beach is off of.
Anyways. The parade was filled with giant lesbians and old faggots walking down the street NAKED holding rainbow flags. Now I thought walking around naked was a crime. Just because these faggots have a parade they get to break the law? That's bullshit. I don't want to see some 70 year old mans junk flopping all over the street when I go to the beach.
In conclusion faggots will burn in hell for 1 being gay and 2 breaking the law.

[Feranor]

Animals aren't exclusively homosexual. They engage in homosexual acts because of hormone surplus or to like practice or something. I don't know.

You know what the difference is? We have common sense, logic, morals. Animals eat their own shit, they jump off cliffs, they chase their own fucking tail! So fucking what?
Are you fucking serious suggesting just cause animals do it, it's normal? It's not. It's an anomaly in nature. But, that's OK, go be gay, just don't fucking parade it.

How do you dumbasses manage to breathe?

We already established right at the start that we don't necessarily derive our morals etc. from what occures in "nature".

[DarkBunny]

Parade. We have a gay pride parade in my city. I went last year. I asked my friends to go to the beach and they said ok, little did I know the gay parade was going down the same street the beach is off of.
Anyways. The parade was filled with giant lesbians and old faggots walking down the street NAKED holding rainbow flags. Now I thought walking around naked was a crime. Just because these faggots have a parade they get to break the law? That's bullshit. I don't want to see some 70 year old mans junk flopping all over the street when I go to the beach.
In conclusion faggots will burn in hell for 1 being gay and 2 breaking the law.

one question are you a christian?but i agree with some of the post

[Kurosekai]

ouch. yeah gays do tend to get carried away when it comes to sharing the fact that they r. idk y they have parades and shit. but im for gay rights cause it doesnt affect me but honestly. u dont need to flaunt the fact that u are gay. we rly dont give a crap about ur life choices.

EDIT: btw this is for ash's post. i forgot to click the quote button

[Kotoumaru]

It could have been a nudist beach or something. If not yeah, it's illegal.

At Kochito : Yeah we do but we fucking realize the conciquences, don't we? Animals do stuff that's fucking dumb.

If tommorow a group came that said "We want shit served in resturants, animals eat shit so it's normal" would you be ok with it? And maybe you would, but would you be Ok with them eating the shit sitting at the next table?

Weak example, but you get what I mean.

[DarkBunny]

It could have been a nudist beach or something. If not yeah, it's illegal.

At Kochito : Yeah we do but we fucking realize the conciquences, don't we? Animals do stuff that's fucking dumb.

If tommorow a group came that said "We want shit served in resturants, animals eat shit so it's normal" would you be ok with it? And maybe you would, but would you be Ok with them eating the shit sitting at the next table?

Weak example, but you get what I mean.

no fucking way would i be comfortable with that

[kochito22]

It could have been a nudist beach or something. If not yeah, it's illegal.

At Kochito : Yeah we do but we fucking realize the conciquences, don't we? Animals do stuff that's fucking dumb.

If tommorow a group came that said "We want shit served in resturants, animals eat shit so it's normal" would you be ok with it? And maybe you would, but would you be Ok with them eating the shit sitting at the next table?

Weak example, but you get what I mean.

I'm not the one buying shit to eat so it wouldn't affect me, just like gay marriage.

[Wras]

If you have a restaurant reeking of shit you wouldn't go to that restaurant anymore. As much as you say "oh well I'm not ordering shit, I don't mind" you're still going to think 'they serve SHIT at that restaurant'.

[Kotoumaru]

So you'll be able to enjoy your stake and have a nice dinner while people are eating shit right in front of you, all smelly and disgusting?

You are a stroooong man.

[LarryLunch]

The only rights homos have is to get rounded up and fucking burned. If even Jesus hates you, what the fuck do you live for?


I'm not about to hear "THEY ARE PPL TOO OMG" arguments, so CLOSED.

Fag lovers.