Do you dislike gay people, or do you have no problem with th

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 24 Mar 2006 21:10

Sweet bro. Way to have an opinion! Good thing I'm not going to JUDGE you because you have an OPINION! WHO WOULD DO THAT???

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 25 Mar 2006 01:40

JoFa wrote:man i love quotes

Paul Agostinelli wrote:
the gay community doesnt have some secret plot to turn the whole world gay, and the straight population isnt turning gay any time soon, so get a clue.

~NEL~

JoFa wrote: Of course this is a very long-term effect, and obviously won't happen any time soon. But over several generations, this could easily become the case. Please read my posts more carefully
And by the way, I never said homosexuality was wrong, I said that in my opinion it is disgusting.

so do i.

even over 10,000 or a billion years, if our planet lasts that much longer, people arent going to stop reproducing. our race will die out long before the homosexual virus spreads and makes everyone repulsed by the idea of heterosexual reproduction.

and might i point out, we are most likely going to die out of something we as a race CHOSE to do, like continue to destroy the earth around us, at least baby steps are being taken in the right direction, but ill leave the tree-hugging for a different discussion.

~NEL~

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 25 Mar 2006 01:49

and just so we're clear,

when you used the phrase "any time soon" you were stating something that you think is an actual plausability,

when i used the phrase, i was being entirely sarcastic, meaning "not happening at all" as in, your scenario isn't concievable in the near, or distant future.

translation:
i was making fun of your sorry excuse for a prejudice disguised as a theory (and a poor one with no scientific backing, i might add.)

~NEl~

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 25 Mar 2006 09:01

I was quoted:
----------------------
Here's something that appears objective and balanced?:

" more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation"

Translation: "be gay"

------------

And i was criticized:

-----------
wrong.

that means that they are more open to the idea of homosexuality, not that they more likely to be gay. how can you translate that as such?
-----------------------------------------

Maybe it implies both.

"notions of rigid sexual orientation" is a lousy sentence to use. What it means exactly is vague.

krawallier · Post by **krawallier** » 25 Mar 2006 11:11

HighDemonslayer wrote: " more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation"

Translation: "be gay"

------------

And i was criticized:

-----------
wrong.

that means that they are more open to the idea of homosexuality, not that they more likely to be gay. how can you translate that as such?
-----------------------------------------

Maybe it implies both.

"notions of rigid sexual orientation" is a lousy sentence to use. What it means exactly is vague.

still you chose to quote this sentence as a reference why gay couples shouldn't adopt children...

this general attitude of "i don't mind gay people but their lifestyle should not be promoted" is simply WRONG! this is not an opinion, this is a fact!

being attracted more by the same gender than by the other, is due to hormons and not a conscious decision. studies have shown that 15-20% of humans in ALL SOCIETIES are at least as attracted to their own gender as to the other. even in societies where being gay is totally discriminated and there is no tolerance at all (eg death sentence on being gay).
so obviously the amount of oppression towards gay people does not actually change their sexual attitude, only their behavior. therefore all this discrimination (and this is what all you fuckin ignorant assholes are asking for) would actually not change the amount of peolpe being attracted in the other gender, but only their label.

so i am asking you: do you think it is right to discriminate 15-20% of the population because there is general pressure to not live by the way they feel like although it wouldn't harm anyone? this percentage is not going to change. not more, not less. so do you think people should pretend they they are heterosexuals just because that is the "right" thing?

and again this is not opinion this is facts!!!

in my opinion it should be promoted that people should live their lives as well as their sexual lives the way they feel is right, not what their society tells them (as long as i doesn't harm others of course...).

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 25 Mar 2006 14:20

HighDemonslayer wrote:I was quoted:
----------------------
Here's something that appears objective and balanced?:

" more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation"

Translation: "be gay"

------------

And i was criticized:

-----------
wrong.

that means that they are more open to the idea of homosexuality, not that they more likely to be gay. how can you translate that as such?
-----------------------------------------

Maybe it implies both.

"notions of rigid sexual orientation" is a lousy sentence to use. What it means exactly is vague.

oh really? if it was so vague, why would you assume it meant something so simple as "be gay?" if something is so vague and untranslatable into simple terms, leave it that way, instead of trying to distill it to work to your advantage.

and no, that sentence isnt vague at all. it simply means that people arent going to allow the societies around them to put chains on their sexuality, its a very clear meaning to me. and your prior statement makes me think that it was clear to you, too. you were just wrong in your translation, and when confronted by it, you immediately went back on your words saying that the sentence was too vague to translate, and saying "maybe we're both right" which is your way of saying, "what can i say to get the heat off my back and still be seen as at least a little right?"

the point here is that people who take that side of the argument are bigots. whether you say you dislike gay people or not, (which i might add, no one has had the balls to say, all of you are hiding behind the dislike of the "idea" of homosexuality) even if you only have a problem with the idea, you are still bigots.

and id like to back something allan haggett said before about breaking friendships with people that have bigot ideals, i lost a number of friends when i came out, and most of them were because i didnt find out how they felt about gay people until i did. i broke off friendships with them because of their negativity towards a massive amount of people, whether its the idea of homosexuality, or homosexuals they had a problem with, i didnt care, i dont want to associate myself with bigots.

~NEL~

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 25 Mar 2006 20:47

Well this is fun. I make a statement clearly outlining my acceptance of gay people but NOT homosexuality, but then I am told I am disgusing my prejudice. Is that how this works? You don't know what relations I have with gay people. I am friends with gay people at my school, and I enjoy being around them a lot. If any one here has prejudice (definition: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"), it's you for tagging anyone who doesn't love homosexuality as a homophobe.

And just so we're clear,

I never stated any facts, so I obviously don't need scientific evidence. I stated a possibility. I stated my opinions are theories. Are you going to tell me what is possible and not possible thousands of years in the future? Are you going to tell me how I feel and what I think?

And on another note, you also understand that people do not choose their personality (ESPECIALLY any more than they choose their sexual preference) so who are you to judge people based on how they form opinions? This is also prejudice.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 26 Mar 2006 08:33

JoFa wrote:And just so we're clear, I never stated any facts, so I obviously don't need scientific evidence. I stated a possibility. I stated my opinions are theories. Are you going to tell me what is possible and not possible thousands of years in the future? Are you going to tell me how I feel and what I think?

Funny that you think that the spreading of homosexuality would make the human race die out. If the trend stays the way it's going now, our race will very likely die out sooner than in a "billion years" (like Paul wrote) - caused by the HETEROSEXUALITY.
There are already about 6.5 billion of us here and the planet Earth can't take much more. The number is growing enormously. "Fallos is faster than rifle." I remember I read that from some history book [it had something to do with persecutions but it's irrelevant in now].
And if we keep manipulating the life trying to make it longer the Earth may not be able to rescue itself, i.e. create a disease or something like that that would kill enough people. The vires/viruses (?) evolve stronger all the time though, so I think this won't be a problem.
(This is probably that tree-hugging Paul mentioned, huh?

)

Even though it sounds rough, it's sometimes better for the race that the population stays smaller, i.e. many die. It's not nice that people die, so maybe the spread of homosexuality would be a good thing - people don't die if they aren't even born.

What comes to my own sexual 'status', I'm a heterosexual.
I've known it for only a couple of years though. I'm 16 now and I didn't have a sexual status before the puberty because before that I wasn't sexually attracted to anyone.

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 26 Mar 2006 11:08

Like I said earlier, it's a theoretical possiblity. The theory you stated has already been brought up in the peak oil topic!

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 26 Mar 2006 19:37

Fuck that Nel

Just because I'm don't think homosexuality is 'natural or correct' doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. I think Islam is incorrect, and christianity is incorrect-but I do not hate Muslims or Christians. I think eating meat is incorrect because we as humans were never intended to, it's wrong to take life, and it's plain yucky-but that doesn't mean I hate meat eaters.

Just because I don't think two guy pirates playing bury the treasure is the 'right' or 'natural' thing to do, doesn't mean I dislike homosexuals. I am not a bigot, and I thoroughly detest being accused of it.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 26 Mar 2006 20:25

TheVindicator wrote:Fuck that Nel

Just because I'm don't think homosexuality is 'natural or correct' doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. I think Islam is incorrect, and christianity is incorrect-but I do not hate Muslims or Christians. I think eating meat is incorrect because we as humans were never intended to, it's wrong to take life, and it's plain yucky-but that doesn't mean I hate meat eaters.

Just because I don't think two guy pirates playing bury the treasure is the 'right' or 'natural' thing to do, doesn't mean I dislike homosexuals. I am not a bigot, and I thoroughly detest being accused of it.

So you would give them the full rights of a heterosexual?

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 26 Mar 2006 20:39

Slowsis wrote: So you would give them the full rights of a heterosexual?

I know this wasn't for me, but I still want to answer.

I would give them the full rights of a human being.
I don't split people up into different groups with different rights. Every person deserves the same rights, whether he be gay, hetero, a theif, a murderer, even a footbagger! - all people are people.

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 26 Mar 2006 22:04

so you're pro gay-marriage now? because that certainly fits the bill.

~NEL~

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 26 Mar 2006 22:17

TheVindicator wrote:Fuck that Nel

Just because I'm don't think homosexuality is 'natural or correct' doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. I think Islam is incorrect, and christianity is incorrect-but I do not hate Muslims or Christians. I think eating meat is incorrect because we as humans were never intended to, it's wrong to take life, and it's plain yucky-but that doesn't mean I hate meat eaters.

Just because I don't think two guy pirates playing bury the treasure is the 'right' or 'natural' thing to do, doesn't mean I dislike homosexuals. I am not a bigot, and I thoroughly detest being accused of it.

so would i be correct in assuming that if the gay people you know were straight you would think that they were more "natural" or "right"?

the reason you are a bigot is because you think there is something wrong with homosexuality, which directly translates into you thinking there is something wrong with homosexuals.

someones sexuality is as big a part of who they are as islam is to you. you saying you have a problem with homosexuality, to a homosexual, is as bad as them saying that they have a problem with islam, and that if all the muslims in the world were christian, they would be more "right" or "natural"

get it?

~NEL~

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 26 Mar 2006 22:20

i read that incorrectly, i see now you said you disagree with islam, but the idea doesnt change, replace islam with whatever religion you believe in, or basically anything that you believe makes up a large part of your being.

~NEL~

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 27 Mar 2006 05:44

Good old semantics.....can't live without them!

Paul, I think you are overreacting a bit. Jose is saying that he disagrees with something homosexuals do, not who homosexuals are. I agree with you that it is an ignorant and uninfformed point of view, but I assume he want's to treat everyone as equals. You can't change the mind of people on such a topic, and if it does not affect homosexuals in general (they still get full human rights and are not insulted or slandered by said person) it is simply an issue of personal opinion. I know it sucks, but its like trying to prove to someone that there is, or is no, God.

As a whole...this topic has once again shown who is a bigot.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 27 Mar 2006 09:59

Paul Agostinelli wrote:so would i be correct in assuming that if the gay people you know were straight you would think that they were more "natural" or "right"?

No. What they do behind closed doors is their own business. If I had a preference to be whipped, tortured and dominated in the bedroom by groups of women, it's no one's fucking business. However, I personally don't think that's 'right' either and that violence/pain has no place in the bedroom. Does that mean I'm intolerant of those in the BDSM/S&M lifestyle? No.

the reason you are a bigot is because you think there is something wrong with homosexuality, which directly translates into you thinking there is something wrong with homosexuals.

Why should I think homosexuality is acceptable? What if it becomes common practice for bestiality. Will I be a bigot for not accepting the animal humpers too? Just because you decided homosexuality is ok, and that it is commonplace does not make it 'right'. I think Men are meant for Women.

Keep in mind, I'm simply talking about homosexuality in general.. That's my personal belief. Homosexuals themselves I have nothing against and I treat equally. Do you have to be down with the idea of having candles burned onto your ass while being whipped on video to be ok with the folks doing it? No.

krawallier · Post by **krawallier** » 27 Mar 2006 10:35

TheVindicator wrote:Why should I think homosexuality is acceptable? What if it becomes common practice for bestiality. Will I be a bigot for not accepting the animal humpers too? Just because you decided homosexuality is ok, and that it is commonplace does not make it 'right'. I think Men are meant for Women.

of course in a genetical/biological/reproductive sense, men are made for women. that snug fit is a good hint at it anyways...but this does not mean that it reflects their emotional/hormonal reality.
comparisons with animal humpers are inadequate. people who rape other living beings (animals, children, women, men) don't deserve much tolerance

Keep in mind, I'm simply talking about homosexuality in general.. That's my personal belief. Homosexuals themselves I have nothing against and I treat equally. Do you have to be down with the idea of having candles burned onto your ass while being whipped on video to be ok with the folks doing it? No.

so what is it you dislike? that two of the same gender love each other, or do you just not want to be confronted with their sexual practices? the latter does not make you a bigot. the first does.

anyways i'll go it out and date a girl now...

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 27 Mar 2006 12:20

"people who rape other living beings (animals, children, women, men) don't deserve much tolerance "

It's not always rape! I've had plenty of willing dogs hump my leg, but I'm not down with the jungle groove, baby!

Haha seriously guys this topic is getting out of hand. It is ok for somone to not like a practice, but still be ok with it's practicer.

For example: I have friends who cuss. I think cussing is vulgar and makes you look silly, but I still hang out with these people because they are good, fun people.

Case in point.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 27 Mar 2006 14:31

krawallier wrote:anyways i'll go it out and date a girl now...

Word.