[QUOTE=DanTehMan;34080362]
I think it would be perfectly alright if gay's weren't allowed to get 'married' per say, as long as they were granted partnerships with perfectly equal rights.[/QUOTE]
This flies in the face of equality and is in direct contradiction to the rest of your post
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;34080362]This is not the kind of argument you should be making to someone who disagrees with you, though. It's much more difficult for someone to see an entirely different way of thinking, like you're proposing, than to cater to a set of ideals they already have. Some buzzwords like 'equality' or 'equal rights' are something that everyone understands, and are ideals discussed in religious texts and even in governmental texts. Try throwing 'all men are created equal' in their faces and see how they respond.
I think it would be perfectly alright if gay's weren't allowed to get 'married' per say, as long as they were granted partnerships with perfectly equal rights.[/QUOTE]
I was more focusing on the biological aspects of nature, and how they play a role in our lives.
I wasn't trying to sway your opinion through buzz words or emotions, I was just telling you there are a lot of behaviors we have that can be attributed to the primal instinctual parts of our brain. How we instinctively respond to things. Human sexuality is just like an animal's sexuality, it's very complex. I think women bleeding out of their vaginas once a month is unnatural, but it doesn't apply to me. Just because homosexuality doesn't play a fundamental role in your life doesn't make same-sex attraction any less real for us. Periods and menstruating aren't choices, but they are the side effects of the female sexuality. Through evolution we have seen there are several deviations that can occur in a species, and something that occurred a long time ago was homosexuality. And obviously it's natural, because like Zeke said, it hasn't been weeded out of succeeding generations. And syndromes, disorders, cancers and whatnot have a likelihood of appearing in a person's life upon birth or during their lives. But that isn't too say it's going to happen. Not everyone's going to be gay/bi, just a fraction.
And as observers, we can call something natural or not. But backwards thinking has limited a lot of progression.
Like I think it's fucking ridiculous that gay rights is still an issue when our planet's natural resources could be used up by 2050.
Abortion rights and gay rights are such huge topics, and I don't know why (even though I'm gay). Humanity has their heads too far stuck up their ass, and are too busy scrutinizing eachother, to handle ACTUAL issues.
-snip double post I guess-
religious people often disagree on things, such as homosexuality
therefore just because some christians don't believe in gay marriage, that doesn't mean that those christians get to decide whether gay people can marry, it would be up to individual churches
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34081319]I was more focusing on the biological aspects of nature, and how they play a role in our lives.
I wasn't trying to sway your opinion through buzz words or emotions, I was just telling you there are a lot of behaviors we have that can be attributed to the primal instinctual parts of our brain. How we instinctively respond to things. Human sexuality is just like an animal's sexuality, it's very complex. I think women bleeding out of their vaginas once a month is unnatural, but it doesn't apply to me. Just because homosexuality doesn't play a fundamental role in your life doesn't make same-sex attraction any less real for us. Periods and menstruating aren't choices, but they are the side effects of the female sexuality. Through evolution we have seen there are several deviations that can occur in a species, and something that occurred a long time ago was homosexuality. And obviously it's natural, because like Zeke said, it hasn't been weeded out of succeeding generations. And syndromes, disorders, cancers and whatnot have a likelihood of appearing in a person's life upon birth or during their lives. But that isn't too say it's going to happen. Not everyone's going to be gay/bi, just a fraction.
And as observers, we can call something natural or not. But backwards thinking has limited a lot of progression.
Like I think it's fucking ridiculous that gay rights is still an issue when our planet's natural resources could be used up by 2050.
Abortion rights and gay rights are such huge topics, and I don't know why (even though I'm gay). Humanity has their heads too far stuck up their ass, and are too busy scrutinizing eachother, to handle ACTUAL issues.[/QUOTE]
I apologize maybe my tone was a bit too aggressive, I'm completely on your side here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
-Edit-
Alright for some reason FP is messing up.
[quote]This flies in the face of equality and is in direct contradiction to the rest of your post[/quote]
Would it have been better if I had said, "...as long as 'we' were granted partnerships..."? I'm having trouble understanding what the difference is between a partnership with completely equal rights is to that of marriage? If something like this were to happen, then there would be the social standards associated with marriage such as one adult being faithful to one partner. To me, marriage is only something associated with church and religion. Perhaps we need to separate marriage as a religious act and marriage as a legally binding contract?
[QUOTE=BagMinge104;34038128]"eew guys he touched a penis"
Seriously, just because I have a sex life that I enjoy doesn't mean I lack basic sanitation or care.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you don't but once again in the context of warfare, lets say were both in a skirmish with some insurgents. I run out of ammunition. You pass me a clip. I might not be thinking or shooting straight because I don't know if you have dickhands or not. I'm going to be thinking about what you did before this started.
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling or something" - PLing))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;34081735]I apologize maybe my tone was a bit too aggressive, I'm completely on your side here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
[/QUOTE]
It's okay, I figured you were. :)
[QUOTE=Jaistar2k22;34081950]I'm not saying you don't but once again in the context of warfare, lets say were both in a skirmish with some insurgents. I run out of ammunition. You pass me a clip. I might not be thinking or shooting straight because I don't know if you have dickhands or not. I'm going to be thinking about what you did before this started.
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.[/QUOTE]
The way you've made trolling seem so believable is really quite an art. I commend you for it.
[QUOTE=Jaistar2k22;34081950]I'm not saying you don't but once again in the context of warfare, lets say were both in a skirmish with some insurgents. I run out of ammunition. You pass me a clip. I might not be thinking or shooting straight because I don't know if you have dickhands or not. I'm going to be thinking about what you did before this started.
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.[/QUOTE]
What does being gay have anything to do with this
plus what makes you suddenly think the penis is dirty compared to the rest of your body
I have absolutely no problem with them, in fact I know one. And he's just like anyone else.
I'm not against gays and know a couple and treat them exactly as i would anyone else.
But i am against public displays of affection, not because of their sexuality, simply because i don't like straight couples doing it either, i'm not about to stop who ever it may be, but i'd be more comfortable if it was done behind closed doors.
That said, i find the openly gay people [I]Very[/I] annoying.
You're gay i understand that i don't care, but i don't need / want you to keep telling me that at every opportunity seeming as though you're after acceptance.
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;34083687]But i am against public displays of affection, not because of their sexuality, simply because [B]i don't like straight couples doing it either[/B], i'm not about to stop who ever it may be, but i'd be more comfortable if it was done behind closed doors.
[B]That said, i find the openly gay people [I]Very[/I] annoying.[/B]
You're gay i understand that i don't care, but i don't need / want you to keep telling me that at every opportunity seeming as though you're after acceptance.[/QUOTE]
I like how you tried to make it seem like you just didn't like openly sexual people, but then took a jab at homosexuals [I]specifically[/I] anyway.
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;34083687]You're gay i understand that i don't care, but i don't need / want you to keep telling me that at every opportunity seeming as though you're after acceptance.[/QUOTE]
Additionally, have you ever actually met anyone like this?
Unless the exchange you're imagining is:
A homosexual person mentions it once, you through a hissy fit because they had the audacity to mention it, and then you categorize him as 'openly gay and thus annoying'.
I'm beginning to realize that the longer this thread gets, the stupider the trolls get. Is there some correlation between length of thread and stupidity of posts/arguments?
[QUOTE=Jaistar2k22;34081950]I'm not saying you don't but once again in the context of warfare, lets say were both in a skirmish with some insurgents. I run out of ammunition. You pass me a clip. I might not be thinking or shooting straight because I don't know if you have dickhands or not. I'm going to be thinking about what you did before this started.
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.[/QUOTE]
If we're in a firefight and all you can think about is whether I jerked someone off or not, I think you are the one with the problem.
I personally live in an area that is a "stronghold" of Gay culture within the American South and regularly encounter people who are flamboyant, foppish and generally create the typified "negative" view of homosexuality.
That said, I also know several very respectable and homosexual individuals including on of my Professors.
The issue comes down to the fact that a loud portion of heterosexual people fear the percieved image of the "wanton homosexual" who doesn't have any sense of balance or decorum about themselves; IE wearing pink leather chaps and saying darling while groping innocents in the streets. This image has few things currently combatting it, and even the lable "homosexual" often implies a deal of infidelity, scandal or degeneracy.
Of course, this is primarily an American phenomenom. Other countries where Homosexuality is openly allowed (embraced is a difficult word, give me a moment), primarily in the "enlightened" arc of Europe do not seem to have deviants running amoc, raping their boys and seducing their daughters. However, at the same time, American repressionism tends towards the mainstream enforcing itself on the fringe. (The converse is that European repressionism is the Fringe attempting to supress the rest.)
A good example is comparitively the stereotyped 1950s versus the current 2000s. While the breadth of the mainstream is wider and many of the boundaries have changed both actually have many paralells in regards to things that are still considered "wildly taboo." Racism, Facism, Homosexuality, Provincialism, Exceptionalism, Industrialism and other "creeds" that are not generally Cosmopolitan, Corporate, Christian or Clean are all attacked rigorously by the majority of the population.
When I say majority by the way, I do not mean Occupiers, Teapartiers, Celebrities or Politicians but President Nixon's golden "Silent Majority." As it stands, the observable invisible silent majority sees no reason to pull for the fringes, as the Civil Rights movement or the America Out! movements did.
So, you have the publicly percieved and easily produced "loud, annoying, faggy" homosexual playing against the concious and active fears of the current primary majority. Since the primary majority does little to leave its comfort zone, and the homosexual community does little to advance itself (and to an extent cannot do much given the enormous social roadblocks!) we have what is "wrong" with "gays."
*Additional comment: Any commentary relating to the origins, developments, reasons and faculties behind Homosexuality as a natural/unatural behavior are difficult. If you take the time to observe studies relative to it, you'll find many are often admittedly flawed, reversed, biased, overgrown-relative-to-sample-size or counter-evidenced. Of course though, when we get word of mouth or absorb a percieved fact we refuse to let it go until we have the origin of our bias obliterated and that itself is the most difficult thing an argument can mount. It is sadly not a particularly crucial field of human behavioral science and often the only practitioners of the research are crusaders or inquistives rather than the invested and investigative body of eager researchers who produce the "wonders" of the world. Seriously, we have cancer to cure, we can figure out why fireman calenders make you feel funny later.
[QUOTE=Jaistar2k22;34081950]I'm not saying you don't but once again in the context of warfare, lets say were both in a skirmish with some insurgents. I run out of ammunition. You pass me a clip. I might not be thinking or shooting straight because I don't know if you have dickhands or not. I'm going to be thinking about what you did before this started.
You don't have to lack sanitation or care, but what if you were in a rush. What if this skirmish started right as you were jerking someone off. Would you stop to wash your hands first? Logically no, and thats why I support don't ask don't tell. Because American troops don't need to die worrying about their squadmates hands or sexuality. Anything else is ok. I'm not a homophobe, get married, have your own little neighborhoods and parades, I just don't want it around me or my family or on TV in music, printed, taught or really talked about outside of adult circles.
But do what makes you happy that's what life is all about!
I really don't know if your born that way or not, I just heard Lady Gaga say it but I assume you have to be since honestly if I could switch and suck dick for hundreds to thousands of dollars as an escort or do a man without puking I'd probably do it without blinking.[/QUOTE]
So you think about that? What if a straight soldier was jerking himself off before this hypothetical firefight? It's no different, and the problem you've created for yourself out of fear and homophobia would slow only you down.
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088153]The issue comes down to the fact that a loud portion of heterosexual people fear the percieved image of the "wanton homosexual" who doesn't have any sense of balance or decorum about themselves; IE wearing pink leather chaps and saying darling while groping innocents in the streets. This image has few things currently combatting it, and even the lable "homosexual" often implies a deal of infidelity, scandal or degeneracy.[/QUOTE]
Well here's your problem. Whenever a homosexual mentions anything having to do with relationships or really just anything that remotely has to do with homosexuality they're 'being open about it' or 'fulfilling the stereotype', but if a straight person does the same, nothing is thought of it. As for your example of indecency or degeneracy, do you apply the same thought process for extravagantly or deviantly dressed heterosexuals during events like mardi gras? And even if you do, why should it in any way impact what rights these groups have in the public world?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34088233]Well here's your problem. Whenever a homosexual mentions anything having to do with relationships or really just anything that remotely has to do with homosexuality they're 'being open about it' or 'fulfilling the stereotype', but if a straight person does the same, nothing is thought of it. As for your example of indecency or degeneracy, do you apply the same thought process for extravagantly or deviantly dressed heterosexuals during events like mardi gras? And even if you do, why should it in any way impact what rights these groups have in the public world?[/QUOTE]
The majority defines degeneracy and flamboyance. It's also the issue of majority has freedom of comfortable inconsistancy. There is a boundary of deviation that the standard heterosexual can leave and still be a moral person. Since the homosexual is already a deviant however, they are expected to maintain the vestiges of their morality if they wish to argue their position as "normal." Rights regardless, if somehow society could be convienently engineered to allow the reverse, the "feared wanton" heterosexual would be barbaric and cavemannish, grabbing members of the opposite cohort for sole reasons of pleasure and sustenance and an inexplicable social structure that defines gender roles. As such, their "Terrible married life" would be suspect to legal blocks and outrage, even if it truely makes the wives happy and the husbands prosperous.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088463]The majority defines degeneracy and flamboyance. It's also the issue of majority has freedom of comfortable inconsistancy. There is a boundary of deviation that the standard heterosexual can leave and still be a moral person.[/quote]
Says who? Who is setting these limitations and rules?
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088463]Since the homosexual is already a deviant however, they are expected to maintain the vestiges of their morality if they wish to argue their position as "normal."[/quote]
This is an assumption, not based on fact. The idea that homosexuality is deviant and immoral comes from Abrahamic religions, it is not based on human nature.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088463]Rights regardless, if somehow society could be convienently engineered to allow the reverse, the "feared wanton" heterosexual would be barbaric and cavemannish, grabbing members of the opposite cohort for sole reasons of pleasure and sustenance and an inexplicable social structure that defines gender roles. As such, their "Terrible married life" would be suspect to legal blocks and outrage, even if it truely makes the wives happy and the husbands prosperous.[/QUOTE]
Yes, much like the old caricature of a black man aggressively having his way with a white woman that was perpetuated so long ago. Thank god we did away with that and moved forward, yeah?
The who is the silent majority, who are infact currently possessed of a standard western religion. To argue practically, you must have them in mind.
And yes, thank god we traded that image in for sneering chinese industrialists profiteering off of starving factory drones. Each generation finds its bias.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088650]The who is the silent majority, who are infact currently possessed of a standard western religion. To argue practically, you must have them in mind.[/quote]
Can't well argue with something that is merely assumed to exist. Obviously heterosexuals are in the majority as far as it goes, but the idea that you're either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual is a false one, so I don't know if it applies in the traditional sense of a 'majority'. Also, by "standard western religion", are you referring to Christianity? If so, I have no reason to pander to bigots, and neither should anyone else.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088650]And yes, thank god we traded that image in for sneering chinese industrialists profiteering off of starving factory drones. Each generation finds its bias.[/QUOTE]
At a certain point we'll run out or reach a point where it ends up so ridiculous that no one takes it seriously.
By standard western Religion, I mean any religion that finds its roots in European development. African and Arabic religions also support the same definitive trend.
And since my argument contends there is infact a silent majority that displays a consensus projection, if you refute it outright, then there is no value to it. That said, I never stated anyone is 100% anything. I am using the lables hetero and homosexual as common society contends. Homosexual also tends to overlap Transgender, Bisexual and Pansexual inclusively and the same social issues extend down to them.
As for the other subpoint, by that logic then eventually society will reach a point where its hyperbolic views will bypass evident views. However, there are too many "real" examples to severly undercut the hyperbolic base.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088878]By standard western Religion, I mean any religion that finds its roots in European development. African and Arabic religions also support the same definitive trend.
And since my argument contends there is infact a silent majority that displays a consensus projection, if you refute it outright, then there is no value to it. That said, I never stated anyone is 100% anything. I am using the lables hetero and homosexual as common society contends. Homosexual also tends to overlap Transgender, Bisexual and Pansexual inclusively and the same social issues extend down to them.
As for the other subpoint, by that logic then eventually society will reach a point where its hyperbolic views will bypass evident views. However, there are too many "real" examples to severly undercut the hyperbolic base.[/QUOTE]
Really? So in your view there are [I]just too many[/I] 'flamboyant homosexuals' and the like to afford giving them fair treatment?
If that's how you wish to interpret it. I think of it more as there being too many who have a highly visible and dominant share of homosexual culture. And it is not "too many to" but rather "too many that they may." Think of it like this, I have a sack full of rocks weighing me down, and I jump into the water. I certainly CAN swim, and free of these rocks I can reach the shore. However, it is more likely I will drown, since even though there is nothing wrong with ME, these rocks impede my movement greatly.
I'm confused. Are you saying homosexuality is wrong because the majority of people don't support it?
I'm saying it's "wrong" as far as the majority is concerned because they observe it to be wrong.
--While also contending nothing about the subject itself, apart from the fact it contains a visible cohort who create the image of it being wrong.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34089321]I'm saying it's "wrong" as far as the majority is concerned because they observe it to be wrong.
--While also contending nothing about the subject itself, apart from the fact it contains a visible cohort who create the image of it being wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well polls certainly show that the majority favours same-sex marriage legalization:
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif[/img]
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx[/url]
So what are you on about?
wait... then why isn't it legal?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34089630]wait... then why isn't it legal?[/QUOTE]
Same reason Al Gore won a popular vote but didn't win a presidency.
How popular something is really has fuck-all to do with its realization.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34088463]The majority defines degeneracy and flamboyance. It's also the issue of majority has freedom of comfortable inconsistancy. There is a boundary of deviation that the standard heterosexual can leave and still be a moral person. Since the homosexual is already a deviant however, they are expected to maintain the vestiges of their morality if they wish to argue their position as "normal." Rights regardless, if somehow society could be convienently engineered to allow the reverse, the "feared wanton" heterosexual would be barbaric and cavemannish, grabbing members of the opposite cohort for sole reasons of pleasure and sustenance and an inexplicable social structure that defines gender roles. As such, their "Terrible married life" would be suspect to legal blocks and outrage, even if it truely makes the wives happy and the husbands prosperous.[/QUOTE]
this post is gibberish am i supposed to read it upside down or something
[editline]6th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34089321]I'm saying it's "wrong" as far as the majority is concerned because they observe it to be wrong.[/QUOTE]
whats the point of saying this unless yr. trying to be a pedant?
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;34089321]--While also contending nothing about the subject itself, apart from the fact it contains a visible cohort who create the image of it being wrong.[/QUOTE]
you're really, like, not using a lot of words correctly here. step yr verbosity back a bit dogg
I believe men marrying each other is a violation of nature and god's will.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
