Question about homosexuality

[alphamale]

The "howler" is you, your narrow mindedness and lack of understanding of concepts.

Note to all: Don't ever start a neutral thread on homosexuality - you'll just end up being attacked by the foaming-at-the-mouth, raging queens!

No, gays and lesbians have ONLY said the government should not make laws which descriminate against homosexuals or make homosexuality or homosexual sex ilegal, to stay out of the BEDROOMS of ALL people REGARDLESS of sexuality.

Give me a break - homos are the only ones the police were ever after. And now, in a breath-taking turn-about, gays want the criminal justice system to punish crimes committed against homos more harshly than those against heteros. They're siccing the same fascisti that used to harass them, against heteros! :mrgreen:

Indeed I agree the term may SEEM as if an oxymoron, but you have to agree (if you're an inteligent humanoid) that it does accurately reflect the concept of minorities in general.
Left-handedness, Red Hair, Dislexics, Indigo children, Baldness...etc.

Some degree of baldness is present in most men - it's normal. And Indigo children? What th' hailllll is that????

These are varients in our society which we (at least most of us) all agree are quite normal. None of these things can be "cured" or do they need to be. These variations do not affect a persons ability to assimilate into average society although it does make them stand out.

Your designation of homosexuality as "normal" is a social construction, not a scientific statement. Are pedophiles "normal"? There are lots of them and they've probably been in every society and at all times. How about necrophilacs - normal?

Homosexuality is no different. We work average jobs, we live average lives all we want are the same AVERAGE access to rights, benefits and protections any other average citizen is afforded.

No, you want extra privileges, as I've already shown.

So you believe AIDS is a "gay" disease?
Do you deny it affects more heterosexuals globally than homosexuals?
Are you one of those who claim AIDS/HIV is "Gods rath against Homosexuals?"

Obviously, AIDS in the U.S. is far more present in homosexuals - it is they, not heteros, who took to the streets in massive demos demanding a cure. Why were they doing that - because they have a tender concern for diseases that might afflict heteros? :rofl Get real, please :mrgreen: A book was written, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, describing how CDC scientists deliberately lied about the degree to which AIDS had infected U.S. heterosexuals, back in the 1980s, just so they could get more funding. As for God's "rath" - as an agnostic I take no position on where god, if he exists, targets (or doesn't target) his wrath.

When one specific group of citizens are targeted because of perseved differences and attacked and even killed due to motivations based in hate of that difference, yes there do need to be more strict regulations and penalties.

Nonsense of the first order. I get my head bashed in when I'm mugged, but a homo gets bashed in by someone who doesn't like gays, and he is somehow by being gay ipso facto more bashed? :mrgreen:

 

[Sir_Alec]

Obviously, AIDS in the U.S. is far more present in homosexuals - it is they, not heteros, who took to the streets in massive demos demanding a cure. Why were they doing that - because they have a tender concern for diseases that might afflict heteros? Get real, please A book was written, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, describing how CDC scientists deliberately lied about the degree to which AIDS had infected U.S. heterosexuals, back in the 1980s, just so they could get more funding. As for God's "rath" - as an agnostic I take no position on where god, if he exists, targets (or doesn't target) his wrath.

They took to the streets because they want a cure overall, and not to be selfish. Trust me when I say the AIDs in the US is nothing when it comes to the world. You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no gay agenda to get extra benifits. Hell, there is no gay agenda at all.

 

[JustineCredible]

There is no gay agenda to get extra benifits. Hell, there is no gay agenda at all.

pssst....Yes there is...I guess you missed the memo...I'll send you a copy with that toaster you're waiting for....:2wave:

 

[FallingPianos]

I think an equal civil union would be a fair compromise. That way marriage as a religious institution would not be infringed upon and all the rights of inheritance, medical decision, and tax breaks would be granted without making any conflict.

I see no reason to have different titles. allowing gays to get married doesnt force any church to sanction the marriages.

 

[FallingPianos]

Oh no no no, God made a proportionate % of men gay so that they would keep their grubby hands off His lesbians.

but the straight men are still going after the lesbians.

 

[FallingPianos]

*Whistles innocently*.........

When gay marriage becomes Federally legal, on what grounds could 2 gay first cousins be denied a union?

...the same grounds that two straight first cousins can be denied a union?

 

[Jerry]

but the straight men are still going after the lesbians.

God created them too. Not the devil.

 

[Jerry]

...the same grounds that two straight first cousins can be denied a union?

And what grounds would that be?

 

[JustineCredible]

but the straight men are still going after the lesbians.

Yea, it's ok, I don't mind, at least I still see it as a compliment. I can't say as much for straight guys who are hit on by Gay guys.
:doh

 

[faithful_servant]

I've read that homosexuals claim, with I believe some backing by studies, that homosexuality is innate. If that is the case, then why should such beings be "allowed" by nature, since every evolutionarily acquired trait seems to be to either facilitate survival or procreation? Or maybe homosexuality is a birth defect? Or what?

alpha, it's not a matter of should they be allowed to procreate, it's a matter of how do they procreate? One of the biggest issues surrounding homosexuality is the concept of being born a homosexual. If a person was born a homosexual, then it stands to reason that there is a genetic component involved. Due to the lowered possibility of a homosexual reproducing, this genetic component woud die out within a couple of hundred generations (using 5% homosexual with 50% reproducing themselves at 110% per generation). Born homosexual? I doubt it...

 

[Thinker]

Due to the lowered possibility of a homosexual reproducing, this genetic component woud die out within a couple of hundred generations (using 5% homosexual with 50% reproducing themselves at 110% per generation). Born homosexual? I doubt it...

Nonsense. Let's use your argument on a different species. 99+% of ants are
born sterile. So according to you, ants should die out in a couple of generations.

 

[faithful_servant]

Nonsense. Let's use your argument on a different species. 99+% of ants are
born sterile. So according to you, ants should die out in a couple of generations.

Learn math. Take into account all of the factors, not just one. The reproduction rate is just a little different for the two species - by factor in the millions. :roll:

 

[JustineCredible]

Learn math. Take into account all of the factors, not just one. The reproduction rate is just a little different for the two species - by factor in the millions. :roll:

But of course your theory is flawed in that you're only accounting for those homosexuals who admit to being homosexual, not those who are still "in the closet" let alone those who MUST carry the Homosexual Gene but who are not affected by it.

Thus blowing HUGE HOLES into your nice and tidy theory...:shoot :blowup:

 

[Thinker]

Learn math. Take into account all of the factors, not just one. The reproduction rate is just a little different for the two species - by factor in the millions. :roll:

I have no problems with mathematics, but you seem to have problems with logic.
As you say, take into account all the factors. There are too many possibilities to
allow your simplistic calculations to be anything but noise.

One possibility for which there is a certain amount of evidence, is that mothers
who have homosexual children tend to be more fertile than those who do not.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

 

[FallingPianos]

And what grounds would that be?

the fact that they're first cousins

 

[FallingPianos]

God created them too. Not the devil.

ok...

so, god created lesbians because lesbians are hot. then, he decided he needed to create an equal portion of gay men so that they'll keep their hands off the lesbians. then he created straight men who go after the lesbians anyway.

why doesnt god just get rid of men entirely, and make reproduction an asexual process? then the world could be filled with lesbians.

 

[Jerry]

the fact that they're first cousins

That’s just like saying “a man can not marry another man because his spouce would be a man“.
I don't believe that that rational would hold up in court. Why would relation matter in a same gender couple?

 

[Jerry]

ok...

so, god created lesbians because lesbians are hot. then, he decided he needed to create an equal portion of gay men so that they'll keep their hands off the lesbians. then he created straight men who go after the lesbians anyway.

why doesnt god just get rid of men entirely, and make reproduction an asexual process? then the world could be filled with lesbians.

Fully functional hermaphrodites.........oh wouldn't that be the $hit!

 

[ngdawg]

Fully functional hermaphrodites.........oh wouldn't that be the $hit!

Dayum....that'd give 'Go ph*ck yourself' a whole new meaning....and not much of a cuss.:mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

Dayum....that'd give 'Go ph*ck yourself' a whole new meaning....and not much of a cuss.:mrgreen:

Hmmm......a homosexual female is called a lesbian......a homosexual male is called a gay.....so a hermaphrodite would be called............

 

[FallingPianos]

That’s just like saying “a man can not marry another man because his spouce would be a man“.

I don't believe that that rational would hold up in court.

isnt that what the pro gay marriage folk have been saying all along?

Why would relation matter in a same gender couple?

why wouldnt it?

 

[Diorling]

why wouldnt it?

Because the whole reason why a mother and son cant get married (and have sex to procreate) is because they'll have dolphin-children, two brothers aren't going to procreate therefore there's no concern for any genetic issues.

 

[Jerry]

Because the whole reason why a mother and son cant get married (and have sex to procreate) is because they'll have dolphin-children, two brothers aren't going to procreate therefore there's no concern for any genetic issues.

Your saying that reproduction is an assumed function of marriage?

 

[JustineCredible]

Hmmm......a homosexual female is called a lesbian......a homosexual male is called a gay.....so a hermaphrodite would be called............

Someone who has some issues to deal with and learn to either make a choice or accept themself for who they are and how they were born.

If you deny the existance of homosexuals who are "born" that way, would you also deny the fact that "hermaphrodites" (those born with both male and female genitalia) are born that way?

Why do you feel such a driving need to catagorize and compartmentalize everyone?

 

[ngdawg]

Hmmm......a homosexual female is called a lesbian......a homosexual male is called a gay.....so a hermaphrodite would be called............

Their own best friend :mrgreen: