View Full Version : youTube Anti-gay Rant
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 08:42
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo
Hilarious. That she can actually believe the things she says blows my mind. Particularly "Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . ." Uhm, the Romans anyone? Now I'm not sure, but I really thought that half a millennium was a little bit more than a few decades...
But one thing is certain: life would be much more dull if it wasn't for fundamentalist hate-speech :beam:
And from a member of congress, no less....
BTW, I thought all the inbred ones were from Alabama? At least that's what SFTS told me...
Mikeus Caesar
03-11-2008, 10:01
I only managed to listen to half of it (my internet is a pile of :daisy: that was dragging out the buffering process so much), but i lol'd.
Just a silly bigot.
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 10:10
Just a silly bigot.
....who happens to be elected to congress... A representative of the american state, one might say...
sweet jezus alabama :dizzy2:
Mikeus Caesar
03-11-2008, 10:30
....who happens to be elected to congress... A representative of the american state, one might say...
Oh?
Let me correct that then - silly elected bigot.
By the people, for the people, as they say...
Best bit.
They're teaching indoctrination in our schools.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Uhm, the Romans anyone?
Nope.
CountArach
03-11-2008, 12:03
Hate to disagree with you HoreTore, but neither the Macedonians nor the Romans embraced Homosexuality, they just tolerated it.
I lol'ed hard at the silly elected bigot.
Then I did remember she was elected.
Then I lol'ed hard at the silly bigots who elected her.
Finally a politician dares to tell the truth.
Pretty obvious now that the gay movement tries to use that against her with their hate-campaign. :no:
Big_John
03-11-2008, 12:11
that's vintage oklahoma there guys. not everyone is privy to it. enjoy it while you can.
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 12:14
Hate to disagree with you HoreTore, but neither the Macedonians nor the Romans embraced Homosexuality, they just tolerated it.
Though I could be wrong, I got the feeling that anything but than burning gays at the stake would be embracing homosexuality in her mind...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 12:23
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo
Hilarious. That she can actually believe the things she says blows my mind. Particularly "Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . ." Uhm, the Romans anyone? Now I'm not sure, but I really thought that half a millennium was a little bit more than a few decades...
But one thing is certain: life would be much more dull if it wasn't for fundamentalist hate-speech :beam:
And from a member of congress, no less....
BTW, I thought all the inbred ones were from Alabama? At least that's what SFTS told me...
Meh, she's a State Legislator, not a Senator.
Oh, and the Romans never embraced homosexuality.
Having said that, these sorts of comments are stupid, but they're also common among a certain age-group over here as well.
Big_John
03-11-2008, 12:26
well, there are differences between modern homosexuality and ancient homosexuality. but the statement is still a stretch, at best.
Well the Greek embraced the thing in question quite litterally.
It was proposed that true love could only exist between two men.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 12:38
Well not really, women were at it too. Spartan Matrons and Sapho of Lesbos being examples.
In any case, this is not an example of any form of Christian love, so the title is misleading and a bit inflamatory.
am I the only one that finds it kinda amusing that if Jesus came back this kind of persons would probably be at the top of his ass kicking list?
I mean...way to spread the love babe...that´s real Christian of her.
KukriKhan
03-11-2008, 13:19
I listened to it twice, and though I heard a lot of ignorance, I pointedly didn't hear her (whoever she is; we have to take the word of the clip-maker that she's a state legislator) say she was Christian.
Changing the thread title.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 13:34
am I the only one that finds it kinda amusing that if Jesus came back this kind of persons would probably be at the top of his ass kicking list?
I mean...way to spread the love babe...that´s real Christian of her.
Nope, gives me chuckles every day.
Smitey, smitey.
Adrian II
03-11-2008, 13:35
I listened to it twice, and though I heard a lot of ignorance, I pointedly didn't hear her (whoever she is; we have to take the word of the clip-maker that she's a state legislator) say she was Christian.
Changing the thread title.:inquisitive: Eh?
She admitted those were her words. And she clearly says in the vid that "according to God's word" homosexuality is bad.
"The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation; it's just a fact," Rep. Sally Kern is heard saying on a YouTube video posted Friday.
In an exclusive interview with News9.com Kern (R-Oklahoma City) admits it is her voice on the recording and stands by her comments. She said she's just stating the facts on what she believes.
"I'm not gay bashing, but according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle," she said. "It has deadly consequences."
Clickety (http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=7983168)
KukriKhan
03-11-2008, 13:37
:inquisitive: Eh?
She clearly says that "according to God's word" homosexuality is bad..
"God" = Christian?
I guess you could claim she's Jewish... but that'd be a long shot. Anyway the current title suits the topic.
Adrian II
03-11-2008, 13:44
"God" = Christian?The Baptist God certainly is.
Clickety (http://www.okhouse.gov/Committees/Member.aspx?MemberID=87).
KukriKhan
03-11-2008, 13:55
So, you propose that I return the thread title to:
It's good to hear true christian love!
it being a more accurate, less-inflammatory description of the clip?
Vladimir
03-11-2008, 14:22
We Christians have too much love (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100398)to keep to ourselves.
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2008, 15:04
I'm not a big fan of gays. I think that the homosexual lifestyle is degenerate and should be condemned (not by the law).
Mikeus Caesar
03-11-2008, 15:25
I'm not a big fan of gays. I think that the homosexual lifestyle is degenerate and should be condemned (not by the law).
You being serious there?
I mean, i'll admit, i'm not a big fan of it either, but if that's what they want to do, then let them do it. They can carry on loving people of the same gender, and i can carry on jacking off to tentacle porn, if i so wanted.
Remember, we all do something that others would find 'degenerate'.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 15:32
I think the original title is a result of HoreTore innate prejudice, rather than being deliberately inflamatory. That's not meant as an insult but it is unjust to equate her views with the concept of Christian Love, even the Baptist version, in the same way as it is wrong to equate her views with Christianity in general.
They are her views, however idiotic and biggoted they are.
Adrian II
03-11-2008, 16:24
So, you propose that I return the thread title to:
it being a more accurate, less-inflammatory description of the clip?Yes. The original title is sarcastic and suggests that the woman is not a true Christian at all. Nothing inflammatory about that. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? She is a Baptist, not a Jew or something, and she is ranting against homosexuals, not against happy people.
Marshal Murat
03-11-2008, 16:32
"Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . ."
I was unaware that Soviet Russia embraced homosexuality.
Geoffrey S
03-11-2008, 16:39
You being serious there?
I mean, i'll admit, i'm not a big fan of it either, but if that's what they want to do, then let them do it. They can carry on loving people of the same gender, and i can carry on jacking off to tentacle porn, if i so wanted.
Remember, we all do something that others would find 'degenerate'.
I'd say the disproportionate amount of STD among gays speaks for itself when it comes to their lifestyle.
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2008, 16:44
You being serious there?
I mean, i'll admit, i'm not a big fan of it either, but if that's what they want to do, then let them do it. They can carry on loving people of the same gender, and i can carry on jacking off to tentacle porn, if i so wanted.
Remember, we all do something that others would find 'degenerate'.
Very serious. The law is the law, and it says that they can do whatever they want, but I don't have to respect their actions. I don't, I find them to be morally abhorrent and I will say it to anyone I'd like. Sue me.
Omanes Alexandrapolites
03-11-2008, 16:59
There are essentially two types of gays - those who want sex only and those looking for long-lasting healthy relationship. There are people in between as well. It's the same among heterosexuals also, only since that's considered more supposedly "normal" it gets ignored.
As far as I'm concerned, relationships based upon nothing but casual sexual intercourse for any variety of sexualities is immoral. Relationships based on two people of opposite or the same genders truly loving each other is very different.
~:)
Abokasee
03-11-2008, 17:25
Hilarious. That she can actually believe the things she says blows my mind. Particularly "Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . ." Uhm, the Romans anyone? Now I'm not sure, but I really thought that half a millennium was a little bit more than a few decades...
Pfft Romans! the Greeks new where it was at!, now back to topic...
I'm not a big fan of gays. I think that the homosexual lifestyle is degenerate and should be condemned (not by the law).
Not really condemned but it shouldn't be encouraged either. I don't really mind when two men are holding hands it's a free country, but it is kinda funny how they are always saying their preference is just that when they are so very eager to flag that same preference whenever they get the chance to define what they are. I make a destinction, there are people that are homosexual that just want to live their life, friend of mine is one he knows I don't like it and don't want to hear about it because that is a stretch too far (we grew up together, sex isn't really something me and my friends discuss anyway that's private), but there are also beasts that like to make a statement out of how much their behavior disgusts some and insist to disgust them some more.
Very serious. The law is the law, and it says that they can do whatever they want, but I don't have to respect their actions. I don't, I find them to be morally abhorrent and I will say it to anyone I'd like. Sue me.
personally the idea of gay male sex isn´t something I like to think about either...not that I think it´s morally wrong (what the hell is moral anyway?) but because I don´t like it....
now if it´s 2 hot girls going at it...that´s another matter :laugh4:
that being said we live in free countries and everyone should be able to do anything they want as long as nobody is being hurt by it....
but what the lady in this clip is doing is far beyond showing distaste for the gay lifestyle...if you said what she said about black people you´d be considered racist...it shouldn´t be okay to say things like that...just because it´s about sexual orientation.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 20:06
Yes. The original title is sarcastic and suggests that the woman is not a true Christian at all. Nothing inflammatory about that. And let's call a spade a spade, shall we? She is a Baptist, not a Jew or something, and she is ranting against homosexuals, not against happy people.
Sarcastic it might be but it suggests an underlying dislike of Christianity and it isn't obvious.
Sarcastic it might be but it suggests an underlying dislike of Christianity and it isn't obvious.
pointing out an obvious contradiction between a persons faith and their actions does not suggest a dislike of that faith....if suggests a dislike for hypocrisy.
I have a bad opinion towards organized religion like everyone in this board knows....but I´ll be the first to say that Jesus Christ is a great roll model....if more Christians acted like him I don´t think there would be so much trouble in the world.
Adrian II
03-11-2008, 20:19
Sarcastic it might be but it suggests an underlying dislike of Christianity and it isn't obvious.So we have a Baptist ranting against gays in the name of God, but Christianity plays no obvious part in it? :laugh4:
Geoffrey S
03-11-2008, 20:41
I wonder what the reactions would be if it were a muslim...?
Somebody Else
03-11-2008, 20:53
The Greeks didn't embrace homosexuality. They embraced other men...
I wonder what the reactions would be if it were a muslim...?
Much less of them that I am sure of at least
Abokasee
03-11-2008, 21:00
I wonder what the reactions would be if it were a muslim...?
The Red Necks wourld be going: "Im not sure to hate them for being a muslim or queer?, I dont even know whats worse?!?"
now if it´s 2 hot girls going at it...that´s another matter
I don't even need to type the dam answer you can read everyone who read that mind
----
This is typical when problems start happening, use a scape goat, perfect examples are: Black Death? JEWS, Germany not doing so well in WW1:JEWS, I personally am not Pro-Gay, but if they want to do, as long as it not right in front of my eyes, im fine with it, gibbering idiots claiming its against god and its sinful... **** off, strange thing is, these are typicaly the same people moaning about abortion!, and who can be guarented not to have baby? a Homosexual! unless they pop down to a "Fertility clinic" (Or for those who would perfer the drop the bomb: Sperm Bank) and plant the donation of seed or if a lesbian goes down and would like to a recieve donation.
---------------
The Greeks didn't embrace homosexuality. They embraced other men...
I didnt do my research so I'll just agree with ya there
Geoffrey S
03-11-2008, 21:05
Much less of them that I am sure of at least
Heh, quite possibly. Hadn't thought of it that way. :sweatdrop:
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 21:26
I wonder what the reactions would be if it were a muslim...?
Well, you can't say that Ahmadinejad didn't make a fuss... Also, a few muslims tried saying basically what a few christians have been saying here, and they got shouted down completely, just like the christians were before them.
Yes. The original title is sarcastic and suggests that the woman is not a true Christian at all.
:2thumbsup:
Jesus said to spread the love, didn't he? Didn't hear much of that from her....
I'd say the disproportionate amount of STD among gays speaks for itself when it comes to their lifestyle.
Sex is worth a couple of STD's...
Sarcastic it might be but it suggests an underlying dislike of Christianity and it isn't obvious.
I wouldn't say dislike, I would say hate. And I really thought it was quite obvious too... Oh, just remember to replace "christians" with "fundamentalist nutters".
Hate to disagree with you HoreTore, but neither the Macedonians nor the Romans embraced Homosexuality, they just tolerated it.
That's not relevant to her argument anyway... she's saying by tolerating homosexuality it will spread and the movement will gain power instead of being a marginalized group. The U.S. obviously doesn't embrace homosexuality, it tolerates it... like the Macedonians and Romans. Why get bogged down in the semantics of a statement that is silly to begin with (this "societies that have embraced homosexuality have not survived more than a few decades"... :laugh4: )?
Furthermore, pretty much any U.S. citizen (other than politicians) who is involved in politics for the sole purpose of supporting either conservative or liberal "values" is silly. This is especially the case for those who support the conservative values: those who are outspokenly against homosexuals, are pro-life (really anti-abortion in practise), or are vehemently against illegal immigrants, etc. I don't care what kind of logic (or tradition) their positions are grounded in; the issues pale in comparison to ones that are the most worthy of concern. It also seems pretty transparent to me that the vast majority of elected officials pretend to be ardent supporters of these values solely in order to get elected/reelected to office by the constituents who actually have these values as part of their households. Indeed, it seems that the minority of politicians who genuinely hold these conservative or liberal values close to heart are not taken seriously by even voters of the same party :laugh4: (I'm thinking Kucinich)... Finally, I'd just add that the marginalized groups fighting for their own rights (homosexuals in the gay-rights movement, etc) at least have something more at stake than the members of the movements that oppose them.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 21:42
I wouldn't say dislike, I would say hate. And I really thought it was quite obvious too... Oh, just remember to replace "christians" with "fundamentalist nutters".
Uh huh? How about "fundamentalist Right-Wing Christian nutters"? Fine you hate Christianity, don't tar us all with the same brush it's intelluctually lazy, insulting and it's the same fault you highlighted in the OP.
So we have a Baptist ranting against gays in the name of God, but Christianity plays no obvious part in it? :laugh4:
See, above she's espousing one minoriety Christian viewpoint, so the title is inaccurate, and it offended me so it isn't a harmless gneralisation. I am a Christian and I do not endorse her views, nor do I think they equate to any definition of Christian Love I am willing to recognise.
"All Christians are evil"
"All Gays are evil"
I don't see a difference, do you?
See, above she's espousing one minoriety Christian viewpoint, so the title is inaccurate, and it offended me so it isn't a harmless gneralisation. I am a Christian and I do not endorse her views, nor do I think they equate to any definition of Christian Love I am willing to recognise.
So what's the problem, it's a minority but you feel offended as a collective anyaway?
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 21:52
nor do I think they equate to any definition of Christian Love I am willing to recognise.
....which was the point.
Geoffrey S
03-11-2008, 21:52
Sex is worth a couple of STD's...
Yes, I hear that's the prevalent view on a certain continent too.
Lol. Whoever is talking is totally insane. Which isn't common standard for christians, so I don't think she's really representative for them. (I hope not for her country either.. these idea's are just as insane as those of our Geert Wilders, and some failed Austrian artist that got us into ww2..)
Finally a politician dares to tell the truth.
Pretty obvious now that the gay movement tries to use that against her with their hate-campaign. :no:
You personify everything I hate about backwards, out of touch conservatives who attempt to hold onto ridiculous "values" whilst simultaneously preaching about the importance of their "morals", oh the hypocrisy. Welcome to the 21st century, we don't stone minorities here.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-13-2008, 00:19
....which was the point.
See, you lost me when you said you hated Christians.
Perhaps you should restate your position because I flat out don't get it.
KukriKhan
03-13-2008, 01:18
You personify everything I hate about backwards, out of touch conservatives who attempt to hold onto ridiculous "values" whilst simultaneously preaching about the importance of their "morals", oh the hypocrisy. Welcome to the 21st century, we don't stone minorities here.
Umm. He was being sarcastic and ironic, not serious. Just like the OP says he was being.
With your help, though, I rest my case: poorly- or insensitively-crafted ironic or sarcastic phrasing can be detrimental to a conversation, counter-productive to furthering discussion, yet productive of personal disrespect, such as your choice of "You personify...".
No worries Kukri, or maybe I should say sorry, but since his personal remark was based on my sarcasm, I'm not taking it personal anyway. ~;)
Yeah, I was being a bit...sarcastic, christians should love gays like everyone else.
these idea's are just as insane as those of our Geert Wilders
awwwwwwwwwwww common Geert is great. Go Wilders kick that butt untill they start to enjoy it :yes:
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 04:39
Gays are weird. I don't like 'em.
Strike For The South
03-13-2008, 05:35
Gays are weird. I don't like 'em.
now what if you had said this about women or a racil minorty? I know you're trying to bait someone into saying "How bigoted of you" and proceed to bash there hippie ass with the 1st amendment but why would you even say something like this to begin with? I mean you have right to but one must ask the question why? If someone said they didnt like your racily mixed family Im sure that would hurt you espically if they put it in such the eloquency that you did. Your comment adds nothing and frankly its people like you that give they free speech limiters there ammo
Your comment doesnt offend me, the sheer idoicy of your reasoning does.
Big_John
03-13-2008, 05:50
now what if you had said this about women or a racil minorty? I know you're trying to bait someone into saying "How bigoted of you" and proceed to bash there hippie ass with the 1st amendment but why would you even say something like this to begin with? I mean you have right to but one must ask the question why? If someone said they didnt like your racily mixed family Im sure that would hurt you espically if they put it in such the eloquency that you did. Your comment adds nothing and frankly its people like you that give they free speech limiters there ammo
Your comment doesnt offend me, the sheer idoicy of your reasoning does.wow. you filled in a lot of blanks.
Strike For The South
03-13-2008, 06:00
wow. you filled in a lot of blanks.
Good blanks or bad blanks?
Big_John
03-13-2008, 06:02
Good blanks or bad blanks?too soon to tell.
i've always been partial to unfilled blanks anyway.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 14:33
now what if you had said this about women or a racil minorty? I know you're trying to bait someone into saying "How bigoted of you" and proceed to bash there hippie ass with the 1st amendment but why would you even say something like this to begin with? I mean you have right to but one must ask the question why? If someone said they didnt like your racily mixed family Im sure that would hurt you espically if they put it in such the eloquency that you did. Your comment adds nothing and frankly its people like you that give they free speech limiters there ammo
Your comment doesnt offend me, the sheer idoicy of your reasoning does.
Homosexuality is defined by action - feelings in general are something that we don't really understand.
I can see that discrimination based on the idea of someone simply being a woman or a black man is wrong because it is not determined by action.
My disapproval of homosexuality is similar to my disapproval of infidelity in marriage, promiscuous sex outside of marriage, exploiting people in business dealings with their consent and engaging in activities that have a corrupting influence on others - regardless of the level of their consent. These are "immoral" actions brought about by feelings and they are unacceptable to me. We all struggle with them, but in the end I appreciate those who overcome the temptations more than I appreciate those who do not.
You may appreciate those who give into those temptations as liberated as is your right - but you are weird to me for doing so. I don't buy it.
My opinions may not impact your opinions in a positive way, but it is my right to say them just as it is your right to say yours.
Welcome to the United States!
PS - what if a sign said "i have love and have sex with toaster ovens! get over it!" and another sign said that "it is bizzarre and immoral to do so" - would the second sign be unnacceptable to you?
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2008, 15:51
I don't like Christians their weired.
I don't see how your statemnet is any better than mine above, i could go onto equate worshipping some entity you've never seen to deviant sex practices, i could go on to mention how hardly anyone has died in the name of homosexuality (or at least homosexuals haven't done the killing you can hardly blame people for dieing) i could mention the fact that i can see alot more logic in being gay than a christian.
This is infact not my opinion but i still have every right to hold it and express it.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 17:03
I don't like Christians their weired.
I don't see how your statemnet is any better than mine above, i could go onto equate worshipping some entity you've never seen to deviant sex practices, i could go on to mention how hardly anyone has died in the name of homosexuality (or at least homosexuals haven't done the killing you can hardly blame people for dieing) i could mention the fact that i can see alot more logic in being gay than a christian.
This is infact not my opinion but i still have every right to hold it and express it.
Now being gay is a choice to be made through a logical process?
You have every right to say such things and even to print them, so long as your words don't incite violence or libelously smear anyone.
There are billboards telling people to divorce their spouses in order to have sex with younger people. I think Christians should be allowed to claim that such a suggestion is immoral on their own billboard.
Homosexuality is defined by action - feelings in general are something that we don't really understand.
I can see that discrimination based on the idea of someone simply being a woman or a black man is wrong because it is not determined by action.
My disapproval of homosexuality is similar to my disapproval of infidelity in marriage, promiscuous sex outside of marriage, exploiting people in business dealings with their consent and engaging in activities that have a corrupting influence on others - regardless of the level of their consent. These are "immoral" actions brought about by feelings and they are unacceptable to me. We all struggle with them, but in the end I appreciate those who overcome the temptations more than I appreciate those who do not.
You may appreciate those who give into those temptations as liberated as is your right - but you are weird to me for doing so. I don't buy it.
My opinions may not impact your opinions in a positive way, but it is my right to say them just as it is your right to say yours.
Welcome to the United States!
PS - what if a sign said "i have love and have sex with toaster ovens! get over it!" and another sign said that "it is bizzarre and immoral to do so" - would the second sign be unnacceptable to you?
And this is true tolerance imho, tolerance and acceptance get mixed up way too often.
Goofball
03-13-2008, 17:15
Homosexuality is defined by action - feelings in general are something that we don't really understand.
I can see that discrimination based on the idea of someone simply being a woman or a black man is wrong because it is not determined by action.
My disapproval of homosexuality is similar to my disapproval of infidelity in marriage, promiscuous sex outside of marriage, exploiting people in business dealings with their consent and engaging in activities that have a corrupting influence on others - regardless of the level of their consent. These are "immoral" actions brought about by feelings and they are unacceptable to me. We all struggle with them, but in the end I appreciate those who overcome the temptations more than I appreciate those who do not.
You may appreciate those who give into those temptations as liberated as is your right - but you are weird to me for doing so. I don't buy it.
My opinions may not impact your opinions in a positive way, but it is my right to say them just as it is your right to say yours.
Welcome to the United States!
PS - what if a sign said "i have love and have sex with toaster ovens! get over it!" and another sign said that "it is bizzarre and immoral to do so" - would the second sign be unnacceptable to you?
Except homosexuality is not defined by action. No sexuality is defined by action.
If a heterosexual male becomes a priest and no longer engages in sexual activity, he is still a heterosexual (no jokes please, I'm being serious here).
Likewise, there are homosexuals who go their entire lives never engaging in homosexual acts. But they are still homosexuals.
But having said that, I don't think that you should be under any obligation to approve of homosexuality. You should be free to disapprove of it all you want, as long as it doesn't lead to discriminatory or hateful behaviour.
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2008, 17:31
Now being gay is a choice to be made through a logical process?
What i meant by that statement is there is probably more physical pleasure to be gained through being gay than being christian, thinking on it though i suppose a strong religous belief could also give you pleasure in a slightly different way.
It was mainly the "I don't like" part of your statement i had a problem with, I would equate it to disliking someone for thier religous beliefs, aslong as people don't act on these feelings i guess theres no problem, I think less of someone who dislike's someone for thier sexual orientation.
Would you think less of someone who said "I don't like christians thier weired" and would you find this statement offensive ?
the whole "its weired" i guess i would have to agree with, but then religous beliefs and people watching cricket is weired to me also....
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 17:42
Except homosexuality is not defined by action. No sexuality is defined by action.
If a heterosexual male becomes a priest and no longer engages in sexual activity, he is still a heterosexual (no jokes please, I'm being serious here).
Likewise, there are homosexuals who go their entire lives never engaging in homosexual acts. But they are still homosexuals.
But having said that, I don't think that you should be under any obligation to approve of homosexuality. You should be free to disapprove of it all you want, as long as it doesn't lead to discriminatory or hateful behaviour.
We have this discussion all the time. Are people who believe themselves to be attracted to appliances, feet, children, animals, etc in special categories too? Who not? Is it the consent issue? Most animals probably wouldn't mind it, especially if you gave them a treat (hey, most of you believe prostitution should be legal anyway, right?) and "children" is just a concept that alters every century - once century they are little people working in factories, the next they are precious angels who need to be sheltered. With a little lobbying they could have "more rights" and the age of consent could be lowered.
If I find out that someone is sexually attracted to horses or dishwashers, can I not hire them for a job if it is publicly known? Is homosexuality different? why?
Are they born that way? Who knows?
I doubt it, but fortunately there aren't that many calls to ban the discrimination against pederasts, beastials and plushies... YET.
15 years ago people would not have fathomed that homosexuality would be advertised on a regular basis all over television or that marriage would be constantly demanded for same sex couples. Had people known about what we are going through 50 years ago Homosexuality would have never been de-criminalized.
Do you doubt that?
We are losing our country to so many degeneracies that it is laughable. Not simply being force fed homosexual messages - familes are falling apart, teens have unprecidented levels of STD's, those who hold to a religious creed are derided and people enable governors in their iniquity.
If you don't believe in a God or hell, our modern situation should remedy that in a jiffy more than theology classes ever could.
No wonder we are constantly attacked by religious people defending their culture.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 17:51
Now being gay is a choice to be made through a logical process?
What i meant by that statement is there is probably more physical pleasure to be gained through being gay than being christian, thinking on it though i suppose a strong religous belief could also give you pleasure in a slightly different way.
It was mainly the "I don't like" part of your statement i had a problem with, I would equate it to disliking someone for thier religous beliefs, aslong as people don't act on these feelings i guess theres no problem, I think less of someone who dislike's someone for thier sexual orientation.
Would you think less of someone who said "I don't like christians thier weired" and would you find this statement offensive ?
the whole "its weired" i guess i would have to agree with, but then religous beliefs and people watching cricket is weired to me also....
You took offense to my simple statement, even though it hurts nobody? Why?
Maybe for the same reason that I have a problem with billboards that advertise homosexuality?
HoreTore
03-13-2008, 18:06
See, you lost me when you said you hated Christians.
What? When did I.... What? Are you high?
We have this discussion all the time. Are people who believe themselves to be attracted to appliances, feet, children, animals, etc in special categories too? Who not? Is it the consent issue? Most animals probably wouldn't mind it, especially if you gave them a treat (hey, most of you believe prostitution should be legal anyway, right?) and "children" is just a concept that alters every century - once century they are little people working in factories, the next they are precious angels who need to be sheltered. With a little lobbying they could have "more rights" and the age of consent could be lowered.
If I find out that someone is sexually attracted to horses or dishwashers, can I not hire them for a job if it is publicly known? Is homosexuality different? why?
Are they born that way? Who knows?
I doubt it, but fortunately there aren't that many calls to ban the discrimination against pederasts, beastials and plushies... YET.
15 years ago people would not have fathomed that homosexuality would be advertised on a regular basis all over television or that marriage would be constantly demanded for same sex couples. Had people known about what we are going through 50 years ago Homosexuality would have never been de-criminalized.
Do you doubt that?
We are losing our country to so many degeneracies that it is laughable. Not simply being force fed homosexual messages - familes are falling apart, teens have unprecidented levels of STD's, those who hold to a religious creed are derided and people enable governors in their iniquity.
If you don't believe in a God or hell, our modern situation should remedy that in a jiffy more than theology classes ever could.
No wonder we are constantly attacked by religious people defending their culture.
You have yet to specify exactly why homosexuality is such a bad thing. You claim to be an agnostic, but all this hatred agains homosexuality stems from no other place than a holy book.
Free country no? If someone wants to condemn a lifestyle that is his right. How tolerant you guys are when you see something that looks intolerant to ya. If someone wants to hate me fine doesn't hurt me. Don't like it but won't hate it as long as they aren't trying to do me wrong.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 18:46
You have yet to specify exactly why homosexuality is such a bad thing. You claim to be an agnostic, but all this hatred agains homosexuality stems from no other place than a holy book.
Historically, are Judeo-Christians the only ones to look unfavorably on homosexuality?
Is the idea of a man and woman coming together in marriage a Judeo-Christian idea as well?
People must have been reading the prequel to the bible...
HoreTore
03-13-2008, 18:50
People must have been reading the prequel to the bible in ancient Greece and China...
Ancient greece, eh? Where their top philosophers stated that the only true love is the one found between men?
EDIT: No hot-linked pictures please. BG
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 18:53
Ancient greece, eh? Where their top philosophers stated that the only true love is the one found between men?
The elite has been known to tolerate or accept homosexuality historically. The philosophers tended to be part of the elite.
They tolerate or accept it now.
I remember reading a few sources that suggest that homosexuality was punishable by death in many cities of pre-Christian Greece.
To state that anti-gay bias is a strictly biblical phenomenon is fallacious. It is specifically mentioned in the bible, but - according to most people who believe that the bible is just a cultural book - it had to come from somewhere. I'd doubt that the writers just threw it in there because some gay short changed them at the market the day they were writing the bible.
HoreTore
03-13-2008, 18:57
To state that anti-gay bias is a strictly biblical phenomenon is fallacious.
That is true though.
But I've never understood or respected anyone going against teh Glorious Free Sex.
Marriage. Hah.
To state that anti-gay bias is a strictly biblical phenomenon is fallacious.
fellatious? :laugh4:
the anti-gay bias is mainly present in the christian, jewish and muslin religions...which have all kind of the same basis....
as as far as saying that the bias has been along for a long time...well..that doesn´t make it right.
like I said before....I´m no fan of man on man action...but I don´t have anything really against people that have that lifestyle either....why should I?
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 19:13
fellatious? :laugh4:
as as far as saying that the bias has been along for a long time...well..that doesn´t make it right.
Right - of course the idea that something has been around for a while doesn't make it right is true. I'm just stating that it has been around for a while, so to target Christianity or Judaism or Islam (of which faiths 54% of people on earth subscribe to) is unfair.
On the other hand, just because something has been around for a while doesn't make it wrong either. I don't believe that duration of time enters into the equation of homosexuality as right or wrong.
Individual religious and moral compunction as well as logical processes can do that for us. I believe that it is "wrong" - I believe that our understanding of it is warped and I will fight that warped understanding for as long as I believe in what I'm saying. Will my understanding change? maybe - how should I know - will the physiological facts change? Do physiological facts impact morality?
The idea that the ancient Greeks embraced homosexuality or even tolerated sex between two men is, in fact, mostly incorrect. Pederasty was often accepted as a form of patronage, but the younger, submissive partner may well have been greatly scorned. In some areas, IIRC, sexual relations between two adult men and/or penetrative sex between males were expressly forbidden. It would be incorrect to think of ancient Greece as a single entity with one set of laws and moral codes.
Strike For The South
03-14-2008, 01:59
Homosexuality is defined by action - feelings in general are something that we don't really understand.
I can see that discrimination based on the idea of someone simply being a woman or a black man is wrong because it is not determined by action.
My disapproval of homosexuality is similar to my disapproval of infidelity in marriage, promiscuous sex outside of marriage, exploiting people in business dealings with their consent and engaging in activities that have a corrupting influence on others - regardless of the level of their consent. These are "immoral" actions brought about by feelings and they are unacceptable to me. We all struggle with them, but in the end I appreciate those who overcome the temptations more than I appreciate those who do not.
You may appreciate those who give into those temptations as liberated as is your right - but you are weird to me for doing so. I don't buy it.
My opinions may not impact your opinions in a positive way, but it is my right to say them just as it is your right to say yours.
Welcome to the United States!
PS - what if a sign said "i have love and have sex with toaster ovens! get over it!" and another sign said that "it is bizzarre and immoral to do so" - would the second sign be unnacceptable to you?
Being gay is more than just man on man sex its more than action. If it was just about finding all hole we wouldnt be in this pickle. 2 men in a relationship are not like anything you listed in your analogies. I do find it funny that you find temptation in gay sex despite you being an agnostic. Your whole idea on gays is based on juedo-christian princples. This isnt about free speech you have the right to say and billborad whatever you damn well please I already said that once so stop bringing it up and acting like you have a point. So I cant be sexist racist? Why not? I just find brown skin very funny and unatracctive to look at. my God think of the little ones. Keep trying to tell yourslelf homosexuality is merely an action
Adrian II
03-14-2008, 04:50
The idea that the ancient Greeks embraced homosexuality or even tolerated sex between two men is, in fact, mostly incorrect.Does nobody read Plato anymore?
And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?Or Plutarch where he writes about the Band of Thebes, the homosexual elite of the army, or where he quotes Philip II of Macedon as saying:
It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas.Or Xenophon, toward the end of his book where he writes admiringly about a soldier risking his life over a male lover?
Not all Greeks applauded homosexuality, nor did all city states accept loving couples as soldiers (the Spartans preferred ability over sexuality as a means to tighten the ranks), but in general, both the thought and the practice of love among adult men were widely accepted and often admired as a "pure" virtue, to the point of epitomizing manliness or military prowess.
Historically, are Judeo-Christians the only ones to look unfavorably on homosexuality?
Is the idea of a man and woman coming together in marriage a Judeo-Christian idea as well?
People must have been reading the prequel to the bible...
To state that anti-gay bias is a strictly biblical phenomenon is fallacious. It is specifically mentioned in the bible, but - according to most people who believe that the bible is just a cultural book - it had to come from somewhere. I'd doubt that the writers just threw it in there because some gay short changed them at the market the day they were writing the bible.
Individual religious and moral compunction as well as logical processes can do that for us. I believe that it is "wrong" - I believe that our understanding of it is warped and I will fight that warped understanding for as long as I believe in what I'm saying. Will my understanding change? maybe - how should I know - will the physiological facts change? Do physiological facts impact morality?
The question stands: why is it bad?
Where the idea comes from is irrelevant; the argumentation behind it is not. So why is it bad? You are supporting an idea which you cannot support with logic?
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 15:52
For Christians, it is bad because the bible and most church traditions say that it is. Same thing for the Jews.
For everybody else it may have been bad because procreation was valued in the society, Anal sex was considered filthy and dangerous, Homosexuals have higher Aids rates than the general pop, it is believed to undermine male/female relationships which may be valued, feminine manhood is frowned upon, etc.
Don't pin those on Christianity. Those are cultural distinctions that do well enough on their own.
Logic smogic - why is murder "bad"? Everyone dies - maybe the families just need to get over it. Why are there taboos against defiling corpses? Nobody is being hurt. Sure, maybe it is "disgusting", but isn't it the right of the necrophile to decide what he finds disgusting?
For everybody else it may have been bad because procreation was valued in the society, Anal sex was considered filthy and dangerous, Homosexuals have higher Aids rates than the general pop, it is believed to undermine male/female relationships which may be valued, feminine manhood is frowned upon, etc.
Some people are simply created different by nature; homosexuality in animals is widespread and currently known in more than a thousand species. If you think homosexuality is bad because of health issues, then the same attitude toward smokers would be appropriate. There is no way homosexuality can "undermine" male - female relationships, people do not marry gay only because they can.
Don't pin those on Christianity. Those are cultural distinctions that do well enough on their own.
As I said, why would it matter where an idea comes from? Is it not the idea in itself that matters?
Logic smogic - why is murder "bad"? Everyone dies - maybe the families just need to get over it.
Homosexuality is not harmful to anyone but homosexuals.
Why are there taboos against defiling corpses? Nobody is being hurt. Sure, maybe it is "disgusting", but isn't it the right of the necrophile to decide what he finds disgusting?
Again the same. The corpses never agreed to be bothered.
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 16:29
Some people are simply created different by nature
No basis in fact - You are speculating. Here we have a cultural belief not founded on facts.
As I said, why would it matter where an idea comes from? Is it not the idea in itself that matters?
Then who said homosexual opposition is due only to judeo-christian values? Take up the issue with them.
Again the same. The corpses never agreed to be bothered.
You need to get consent from inanimate objects in order to use them?
No basis in fact - You are speculating. Here we have a cultural belief not founded on facts.
The abundancy of homosexuality among animals tells a different tale.
Then who said homosexual opposition is due only to judeo-christian values? Take up the issue with them.
Not me. I was aiming at where the opinion in the U.S. comes from.
You need to get consent from inanimate objects in order to use them?
The corpse does not belong to the necrophilian; I am sure you could sue someone for having sex with your video player, no?
It is not a valid analogy to homosexuality anyhow.
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 17:39
The abundancy of homosexuality among animals tells a different tale.
Animals hump alot of things. Doe this mean that all of it is natural? Yes. Humping things is natural. Some dogs have exclusive relationships with stuffed animals.
Arsenic and uranium are natural. Death and disease are natural. Hate and depression are natural.
The corpse does not belong to the necrophilian; I am sure you could sue someone for having sex with your video player, no?
It is not a valid analogy to homosexuality anyhow.
Who does the corpse belong to? Am I the only one that thinks the two can be related?
Some people are simply created different by natureNo basis in fact - You are speculating. Here we have a cultural belief not founded on facts.
The abundancy of homosexuality among animals tells a different tale.
Animals hump alot of things. Doe this mean that all of it is natural? Yes. Humping things is natural. Some dogs have exclusive relationships with stuffed animals.
Arsenic and uranium are natural. Death and disease are natural. Hate and depression are natural.
Might as well put the replies in context. Homosexuality is natural, yes.
Who does the corpse belong to? Am I the only one that thinks the two can be related?
The church? The relatives?
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 18:30
Might as well put the replies in context. Homosexuality is natural, yes.
Saying that something is natural is like saying that it exists. The idea that they are "born different" is not a fact, even though you are stating it as such.
The church? The relatives?
So the owners of the church or members of the family can indulge in necrophilia?
Saying that something is natural is like saying that it exists. The idea that they are "born different" is not a fact, even though you are stating it as such.
Born different as in born with a sexual desire that's not average. That is a fact. People do not chose to become homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. They may decide to try whatever type of sexual they like, but their original sexual attraction will not have changed. Did your parents teach you to become attracted to female forms? Nope.
So the owners of the church or members of the family can indulge in necrophilia?
There are usually more than one person having interests in the well of a corpse, ask them.
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 19:11
Born different as in born with a sexual desire that's not average. That is a fact. People do not chose to become homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. They may decide to try whatever type of sexual they like, but their original sexual attraction will not have changed. Did your parents teach you to become attracted to female forms? Nope.
There are usually more than one person having interests in the well of a corpse, ask them.
I maintain that we have natural sexual urges - the urge to spread our seed. People are born with figurative "sign posts" as to where to plant that seed, but the urge to randomly plant that seed is greater than the object of the planting.
I think that people develop fetishes outside the norm later in their development, but I doubt that they are born with them.
We really don't know enough about the origin of sexual urges to pretend that we know facts about them.
As far as the necrophiliac question - the issue is whether the government has a right to regulate or ban that which harms no one - particularly if people believe that they are naturally inclined to do such a thing.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-14-2008, 19:11
TuffStuff, are you saying you don't think it's ok for men and women to fall in love, get married, or have sex?
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 19:28
TuffStuff, are you saying you don't think it's ok for men and women to fall in love, get married, or have sex?
Why would you think that?
The reality is that there really aren't many reasons why not to do things in the secular world. People will get a "why not" into their head and pursue it until it happens. Opposition tends to be founded on tenuous ground and, if the new idea has enough support, it will happen, whether is "should" or "should not".
There is legitimacy in any argument.
If you think about what motivates us to change things for "the better" - it is a basic belief in egalitarianism. Egalitarianism contravenes fact. Some people are "better" by nearly all standards than others, but we fight for equality why? Because we believe that we are equal in Gods eyes? Where did we get that idea? The bible? If we believe that, why don't we believe in everything else in the bible? If we don't believe in God at all, how are we equal?
In each others eyes? In theory? The idea is optimism in the face of reality.
Because the idea is popular?
What drives us to believe that we must cater to what some people think that they feel and throw "morality" out the window?
Does nobody read Plato anymore?
And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?Or Plutarch where he writes about the Band of Thebes, the homosexual elite of the army, or where he quotes Philip II of Macedon as saying:
It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas.Or Xenophon, toward the end of his book where he writes admiringly about a soldier risking his life over a male lover?
Not all Greeks applauded homosexuality, nor did all city states accept loving couples as soldiers (the Spartans preferred ability over sexuality as a means to tighten the ranks), but in general, both the thought and the practice of love among adult men were widely accepted and often admired as a "pure" virtue, to the point of epitomizing manliness or military prowess.
I am aware of this, but I am also aware that there is no little scholarly debate on the subject. I am also aware that the individuals and states which you mention do not make up the whole of ancient Greece either socially, geographically or chronologically.
Bear in mind that I have no problem with modern homosexuality, preferring to treat people as individuals. I do, however, question the usefulness of ancient Greece in a pro-homosexual argument beyond the superficial.
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 04:05
If we don't believe in God at all, how are we equal?
Try reading some red books.
ICantSpellDawg
03-15-2008, 04:29
Try reading some red books.
What do you mean? Communist books?
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 04:33
What do you mean? Communist books?
Yeah, socialist, if you prefer. No god, yet there are a dozen arguments on why we shouldn't discriminate others.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-15-2008, 04:46
There's a fine line between anti-discrimination (good) and political correctness (bad). With political correctness comes politicians refusing to do anything about problems in case they are viewed as rascist, such as the rapes that ended up getting a populace fed up and starting things like this this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots), or people getting away with things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Riots). Therefore, we have to have tolerance while avoiding political correctness.
Fortunately, I don't think I've ever heard of gay activists using violence, so I think we can let them have the benefit of the doubt and equality. Equality is what democracy is based on.
ICantSpellDawg
03-15-2008, 06:23
Yeah, socialist, if you prefer. No god, yet there are a dozen arguments on why we shouldn't discriminate others.
I've read secular books on ethics. I like them, but they are bunk. Socialism is poop.
I get the idea of living in harmony - but it just seems so inhuman.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-15-2008, 06:26
I get the idea of living in harmony - but it just seems so inhuman.
Sigged.
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 06:34
I get the idea of living in harmony - but it just seems so inhuman.
Yeah discrimination is a hoot, I think we can all agree on that. It IS a lot of fun to throw negroes out of my store.
The bottom line of why we shouldn't discriminate, is that it eliminates talent within the population, talent we need for everyone to progress. We don't live in a personal bubble, you know. The achievements of others will benefit ourselves. We need x amount of talent for society to progress, and we have a population of y to draw that talent from. The larger y is, the greater the chance of getting x. The smaller it gets, the smaller the chance of x. Every single human we keep out of society(discriminate) makes the population pool smaller. We wouldn't want the next Einstein to spend his time depressed because of senseless gaybashing, would we? No, we would want that guy to invent interstellar travel, for example. Even in the next Einstein is gay, black or whatever.
Strike For The South
03-15-2008, 07:12
I maintain that we have natural sexual urges - the urge to spread our seed. People are born with figurative "sign posts" as to where to plant that seed, but the urge to randomly plant that seed is greater than the object of the planting.
I think that people develop fetishes outside the norm later in their development, but I doubt that they are born with them.
We really don't know enough about the origin of sexual urges to pretend that we know facts about them.
As far as the necrophiliac question - the issue is whether the government has a right to regulate or ban that which harms no one - particularly if people believe that they are naturally inclined to do such a thing.
Neither the victim of the murder or the corpse gives consent. When two men have sex they both give consent they know fully well what they are doing. Your analogies are so very wrong. You simply dont like homosexuals becuase of what they do behind close doors. Why do we fight for equallity? becuase its the basis of the American system everyone gets a shot no matter what. You know who is the most at risk for AIDS? Black women not gay men black women. We should shun them to there werid. Im not going to condem homosexuallity becuase it is a private consenting act between people. Its none of my buisness and whether there gay or should not matter.
Geoffrey S
03-15-2008, 10:54
Yeah discrimination is a hoot, I think we can all agree on that. It IS a lot of fun to throw negroes out of my store.
The bottom line of why we shouldn't discriminate, is that it eliminates talent within the population, talent we need for everyone to progress. We don't live in a personal bubble, you know. The achievements of others will benefit ourselves. We need x amount of talent for society to progress, and we have a population of y to draw that talent from. The larger y is, the greater the chance of getting x. The smaller it gets, the smaller the chance of x. Every single human we keep out of society(discriminate) makes the population pool smaller. We wouldn't want the next Einstein to spend his time depressed because of senseless gaybashing, would we? No, we would want that guy to invent interstellar travel, for example. Even in the next Einstein is gay, black or whatever.
I'm tempted to think many socialist concepts of equality fit remarkably well into your issues with discrimination.
Socialism is the worst discrimination there is, the basic principle is that the people are stupid and selfish and need the state to correct that. Downright evil ideoligy.
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 14:18
I'm tempted to think many socialist concepts of equality fit remarkably well into your issues with discrimination.
Which would be why I don't support a lot of "socialist concepts", especially anything Lenin, Stalin, Mao or any of the other idiots have had their hands on...
Geoffrey S
03-15-2008, 14:25
You don't? :inquisitive:
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 14:34
You don't? :inquisitive:
Why should I support things I don't agree with? There are a lot of things a number of socialists have done(even if you exclude the "communists") I don't agree with, but I call myself a socialist because the majority of my opinions fit with the majority of most socialists. It's just like when I vote. I've voted SV(socialist left), because I agree more with them than any other party, but I don't agree with everything they mean. Just like every other voter or party member.
Adrian II
03-15-2008, 14:49
Socialism is the worst discrimination there is, the basic principle is that the people are stupid and selfish and need the state to correct that.Sorry, but that is basically what Adam Smith wrote. His view of mankind is contained in maxims like 'All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind' and 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'
This is what he wrote about the workings of market capitalism: 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.'
Here is what he wrote about the necessity of government: 'Commerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government.'
In short, this is classic liberalism. Nothing socialist about it.
Socialism is about something else, but I suppose it is useless to go any further in this, um, unsophisticated context.
Some would argue that Smith was more a libertarian then he was a liberal, in the end it's the principle of reprocacity he endorses, that can include a government watching over our safety if we give them the mandate voluntarily. Then it's a business transaction, like the butcher and the baker.
Adrian II
03-15-2008, 15:07
Some would argue that Smith was more a libertarian then he was a liberal, in the end it's the principle of reprocacity he endorses, that can include a government watching over our safety if we give them the mandate voluntarily. Then it's a business transaction, like the butcher and the baker.Smith was concerned that people would pursue their self-interest in a host of anti-social ways, hence the necessity of a state apparatus to correct them. That's exactly what you said about socialism. No way around it.
Smith was concerned that people would pursue their self-interest in a host of anti-social ways, hence the necessity of a state apparatus to correct them. That's exactly what you said about socialism. No way around it.
I can't think of an ideoligy completily rejecting the existance of a state save anarchism, but it's the purpose of the state that is important, Smith wanted to keep it's burden to a minimum. Now I am sure that some socialists want that as well but we have history to counter that, the ideoligy is wrong because it will always end in a big expensive and most of all intrusive state, in the end socialism is perfectionism in an imperfect world, it will always build the math around the outcome screwing everyone over.
maybe there should be a political theory thread, don't think we had one of those
Adrian II
03-15-2008, 15:33
[..] the ideoligy is wrong because it will always end in a big expensive and most of all intrusive state [..]All modern states are expansive, expensive and intrusive. Even under anti-statist leaders like Reagan and Thatcher, the state apparatus continued to grow, intrude, feed on itself... That's because of the nature of modern society, which is more complex than any previous society. Again, nothing to do with socialism.
By the way, the usual complaint against socialism is that its view of mankind is far too rosy, not far too pessimistic.
All modern states are expansive, expensive and intrusive. Even under anti-statist leaders like Reagan and Thatcher, the state apparatus continued to grow, intrude, feed on itself... That's because of the nature of modern society, which is more complex than any previous society. Again, nothing to do with socialism.
By the way, the usual complaint against socialism is that its view of mankind is far too rosy, not far too pessimistic.
I cannot think of a thing more cynical personally. It isn't really the state that starts to expand it are bureaucracy's that have loyalty only to the existance of their organisation. State shouldn't want to control to much because they will always serve two masters, what they have to do, and how they want to do it. Voila perfect recepy for growing bureaucracy's. They have taken on a job and can be held responsible for it politically, maybe they shouldn't have taken job at all. It has everything to do with socialism because socialism is a top-down solution instead of the other way around, people have a way of organising theirselves, give them a chance.
Adrian II
03-15-2008, 21:28
It isn't really the state that starts to expand it are bureaucracy's that have loyalty only to the existance of their organisation.If the state continues to grow under anti-socialist leadership (as mentioned), doesn't it follow that maybe this growth has little to do with socialist ideology? It happens all over the globe, except maybe Zanzibar or Ulan Bator. It is a phenomenon common to modern societies. On the one hand citizens and their representatives demand more regulation, security and supervision. On the other hand they demand more guarantees of personal freedom and risk-free consumption than ever before. Hence, bureaucracies continue to grow. Not just state bureaucracies, but corporate bureaucracies as well.
If the state continues to grow under anti-socialist leadership (as mentioned), doesn't it follow that maybe this growth has little to do with socialist ideology? It happens all over the globe, except maybe Zanzibar or Ulan Bator. It is a phenomenon common to modern societies. On the one hand citizens and their representatives demand more regulation, security and supervision. On the other hand they demand more guarantees of personal freedom and risk-free consumption than ever before. Hence, bureaucracies continue to grow. Not just state bureaucracies, but corporate bureaucracies as well.
Increasingly complex society's call for various layers of governments, but you can still aspire to keep it to a minimum, so even if it grows you have to keep it from overstretching. Now that sounds like a cheap and easy answer and it is, but it's really a set of mind. State should do everything in her power to leave things to the market because the market has a habit of doing things better and cheaper. That isn't going to happen in a socialist society, then the increasingly complex society is an extra burden on a already burdened system.
Quirinus
03-16-2008, 05:29
I'd say the disproportionate amount of STD among gays speaks for itself when it comes to their lifestyle.
So according to your reasoning, Africans and Southeast Asians have disproportionate numbers of AIDS-afflicted people, ergo they are more degenerate?
I'm not doubting that STDs are more prevalent among homosexuals, but whether that is so because of their homosexuality is another matter. Example: Tay-Sachs disease is much more prevalent among Jews. Does Judaism or Jewish practices therefore cause or contribute to Tay-Sachs? Obviously not.
Big_John
03-16-2008, 07:10
So according to your reasoning, Africans and Southeast Asians have disproportionate numbers of AIDS-afflicted people, ergo they are more degenerate?
I'm not doubting that STDs are more prevalent among homosexuals, but whether that is so because of their homosexuality is another matter. Example: Tay-Sachs disease is much more prevalent among Jews. Does Judaism or Jewish practices therefore cause or contribute to Tay-Sachs? Obviously not.it could certainly be argued that aspects sub-saharan african and southeast asian societies, right now, are in a backwards state relative to the much of the world. we can acknowledge that there are problems there without erroneously implicating a inherent inferiority in the individuals that make up those societies.
however, Geoffrey S's statement is problematic. assuming STDs are more prevalent among homosexuals, does that 'fact' "speak for itself"? hardly. it says very little without some investigation into why it may be so.
take AIDS. unprotected anal sex is probably more likely to spread HIV. societies that tend to condemn homosexual behavior probably tend to increase the instances of risky homosexual behavior. if these things contribute to higher rates of STDs in gay men, it would be very simplistic to conclude that the 'gay lifestyle' is degenerate.
and what about lesbians? there is a common belief that lesbians are among the least likely to transmit STDs (AIDS specifically) to one another. if this is true, would it speak for itself? is the lesbian lifestyle healthier and more wholesome than heterosexuality? should lesbianism be lauded as the higher form of female sexuality?
Geoffrey S
03-16-2008, 11:55
No fact speaks for itself - it's mainly laziness on my part which leads to such sweeping statements. But yes, I do think that the prevalence of STDs among gays, and although its another matter as Quirinius raised also south-Saharan Africans, can largely be traced back to their particular lifestyle. More frequent changes of partners combined with unsafe and unprotected sex makes them a vulnerable group to such diseases. But to this, I would hesitate to place some label of 'degenerate' or other somesuch term of inferiority.
Quirinus
03-16-2008, 16:12
Actually the point I was making, with my analogy of Tay-Sachs among Jews, is that discrimination from the wider world has made these societies traditionally more closed communities, which encourages the spread of genetic or sex-related diseases/disorders among them. Hence the prevalence of such diseases among them is not (IMO) due to any inherent flaw in Jewish/homosexual lifestyles, but because they are closer-knit.
ICantSpellDawg
03-16-2008, 21:56
Actually the point I was making, with my analogy of Tay-Sachs among Jews, is that discrimination from the wider world has made these societies traditionally more closed communities, which encourages the spread of genetic or sex-related diseases/disorders among them. Hence the prevalence of such diseases among them is not (IMO) due to any inherent flaw in Jewish/homosexual lifestyles, but because they are closer-knit.
That is absurd. Jews getting a genetic disease is very different from Homosexuals getting Aids.
Big_John
03-16-2008, 23:51
No fact speaks for itself - it's mainly laziness on my part which leads to such sweeping statements. But yes, I do think that the prevalence of STDs among gays, and although its another matter as Quirinius raised also south-Saharan Africans, can largely be traced back to their particular lifestyle. More frequent changes of partners combined with unsafe and unprotected sex makes them a vulnerable group to such diseases. But to this, I would hesitate to place some label of 'degenerate' or other somesuch term of inferiority.so, you're for same-sex marriage legislation to encourage longer term pair bonding in homosexuals, i take it? ~;)
There's not that much wrong with the speech linked to in the original post. Most of what she said was completely true and it is indeed sickening how they indoctrinate youth in schools.
It was also very lame how the video maker put pictures of his buddies holding signs into the video to try to discredit the audio. Clearly the video maker was trying to push his own personal agenda into the video via spin tactics like that. :furious3:
Geoffrey S
03-17-2008, 13:12
so, you're for same-sex marriage legislation to encourage longer term pair bonding in homosexuals, i take it? ~;)
It would be debatable how relevant it is even for heterosexual couples nowadays, so I don't see a solution there.
Quirinus
03-17-2008, 13:55
That is absurd. Jews getting a genetic disease is very different from Homosexuals getting Aids.
How so? I'm open to counterarguments.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 14:24
How so? I'm open to counterarguments.
You are equating communicable illness with a recessive genetic trait. You are stating that Homosexuals are "closely knit" when they have no common genetic traits and come from every corner of the globe.
All you have said is that both chosen groups have a disease and are therefore comparable, even though one disease is due to the sins of the fathers and the other is due to the sins of the individual. One is a passive transmission and the others is active - and they are as different as different gets.
Big_John
03-17-2008, 18:14
It would be debatable how relevant it is even for heterosexual couples nowadays, so I don't see a solution there.the comment was tongue-in-cheek (don't laugh). but i don't think it's trivial that a society which condemns homosexuality may very well increase instances of "more frequent changes of partners combined with unsafe and unprotected sex" among the homosexual population.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 18:25
the comment was tongue-in-cheek (don't laugh). but i don't think it's trivial that a society which condemns homosexuality may very well increase instances of "more frequent changes of partners combined with unsafe and unprotected sex" among the homosexual population.
So it is our fault that they tend to be wildly promiscuous because we won't let them get married? If we refuse to give in to their demands they may become even more wildly promiscuous?
Big_John
03-17-2008, 18:43
calm down, grumpy.
So it is our fault that they tend to be wildly promiscuous because we won't let them get married?lol @ "fault". i wonder what the actual 'promiscuity' difference is between the average straight male and gay male. regardless, i have no objection to promiscuity, as long as the sex is generally safe.
If we refuse to give in to their demands they may become even more wildly promiscuous?so gay people are akin to terrorists now? i've honestly never met this 'secret gay agenda' task force the right wingers prop up when arguing against.. gayness? not saying they don't exist, but of all the gay people i've ever met, none have ever fit that bill.
my point remains. there may be (and i believe it more likely than not) a link between risky homosexual behavior and societal condemnation of homosexuals. the take-away from that is that it is reckless at best to point to statistics and conclude innate "degeneracy".
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 19:10
calm down, grumpy.lol @ "fault". i wonder what the actual 'promiscuity' difference is between the average straight male and gay male. regardless, i have no objection to promiscuity, as long as the sex is generally safe.so gay people are akin to terrorists now? i've honestly never met this 'secret gay agenda' task force the right wingers prop up when arguing against.. gayness? not saying they don't exist, but of all the gay people i've ever met, none have ever fit that bill.
my point remains. there may be (and i believe it more likely than not) a link between risky homosexual behavior and societal condemnation of homosexuals. the take-away from that is that it is reckless at best to point to statistics and conclude innate "degeneracy".
You are suggesting that if society stopped condemning homosexual activity that there might be a decrease in risky homosexual behavior, are you not?
That sounds like a cause and effect relationship to me. Society is responsible for increases in risky homosexual behavior because of their condemnation of homosexuality.
Am I not understanding your point?
I'll go ahead and suggest that risky homosexual behavior has increased as we have become more accepting of homosexuality.
Craterus
03-17-2008, 19:16
it is indeed sickening how they indoctrinate youth in schools.
I would say the same about faith schools.
Geoffrey S
03-17-2008, 19:56
the comment was tongue-in-cheek (don't laugh). but i don't think it's trivial that a society which condemns homosexuality may very well increase instances of "more frequent changes of partners combined with unsafe and unprotected sex" among the homosexual population.
To some degree I agree. Heterosexual couples by and large live within a framework of what is and isn't considered moral, and for the majority of the population this certainly does keep a check on promiscuity. By ostracizing homosexuals as a minority group subject to ridicule by almost all, they are placed outside such a moral framework both by others and by themselves - that is the natural tendency civilization has worked a long time to prevent, and has mostly succeeded in among heterosexuals.
So, a matter of mentality in my opinion, on both sides. Though as with all such matters I don't see where to start.
I would say the same about faith schools.
If you go to a christian school you know what you are going to get, a christian school. Not fair that one.
Craterus
03-17-2008, 20:38
The child knows nothing about what they are going to get. When I used to have to go to church on sundays, I didn't see any morality in it, I just thought it was some useless chore my parents put me through.
The child knows nothing about what they are going to get. When I used to have to go to church on sundays, I didn't see any morality in it, I just thought it was some useless chore my parents put me through.
Parents can decide for them, even if it's wrong they have more right to make a mistake then the school the sprouts are attending, and it isn't the school's job to teach about that they should teach math and stuff like that, if they want to go way to gay I would kinda consider that tresspassing.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 21:37
Why don't gays just make "progressive private schools" where they teach the benefits of being gay. Any "progressives" can go there freely and, as long as it adheres to public educational standards, they would have the same status as other parochial schools. Allow them to corrupt their own children.
Public school should be the lowest common denominator (provided the necessities are being met; math, sciences, classics) and go along with the society that props them up. The U.S. educational system would do alot better with a basic requirement and then allow local schools to decide the best way to teach their own kids. Heterogeneous minds? god forbid! All must bow to one way of thinking!
Minimal Federal regulation. More economically competitive and interesting populace vs those who are PC and those who hate being brainwashed.
Why don't gays just make "progressive private schools" where they teach the benefits of being gay.
Oh, but if gays simply became gay because they felt like it, they would never bother to fight for the rights to be so. :idea:
Parents can decide for them, even if it's wrong they have more right to make a mistake then the school the sprouts are attending, and it isn't the school's job to teach about that they should teach math and stuff like that, if they want to go way to gay I would kinda consider that tresspassing.
Oh yes, the school should teach children that homosexuals are some badasses that society shold try to get rid of, because some funny ancient books says so. Homosexuality is wrong because, uh, it just is.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 22:04
Oh, but if gays simply became gay because they felt like it, they would never bother to fight for the rights to be so. :idea:
Why do people fight for the right to smoke marijuana. Because they are born to enjoy it?
Sticking weenies into new places doesn't have to be taught. Gay culture does.
They shouldn't be able to do it on the public dime, but they can pay for it themselves.
Strike For The South
03-17-2008, 22:07
I'll go ahead and suggest that risky homosexual behavior has increased as we have become more accepting of homosexuality.
ok and? more wimmens for the rest of us
Why do people fight for the right to smoke marijuana. Because they are born to enjoy it?
Sticking weenies into new places doesn't have to be taught. Gay culture does.
They shouldn't be able to do it on the public dime, but they can pay for it themselves.
Now where do you have this funny idea from that people become gay per choice? There is no "gay culture" more than there is a "heterosexual culture". Sexuality is not a choice, sexual intercourse is.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 22:19
Now where do you have this funny idea from that people become gay per choice? There is no "gay culture" more than there is a "heterosexual culture". Sexuality is not a choice, sexual intercourse is.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
There have been no physiological differences identified as of yet.
The sexual anatomy suggests a reproductive nature.
The only thing that can qualify you is a sexual act.
It seems to be a fetish. In my understanding, most fetishists either made themselves that way at some point in their life consciously or subconsciously.
Craterus
03-17-2008, 22:21
Why don't gays just make "progressive private schools" where they teach the benefits of being gay. Any "progressives" can go there freely and, as long as it adheres to public educational standards, they would have the same status as other parochial schools. Allow them to corrupt their own children.
Public school should be the lowest common denominator (provided the necessities are being met; math, sciences, classics) and go along with the society that props them up. The U.S. educational system would do alot better with a basic requirement and then allow local schools to decide the best way to teach their own kids. Heterogeneous minds? god forbid! All must bow to one way of thinking!
Minimal Federal regulation. More economically competitive and interesting populace vs those who are PC and those who hate being brainwashed.
They're not teaching "gay". They're teaching tolerance.
People are born gay, I consider that a fact. They don't suddenly choose. If they did, surely we could switch our own preferences at will. You can be gay before even having any notion of sexuality, that's pretty clear to me. Therefore, schools cannot be corrupting anyone.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 22:26
People are born gay, I consider that a fact.
That would put you at odds with scientific reasoning.
Do you normally rely of feelings for your facts?
Oh yes, the school should teach children that homosexuals are some badasses that society shold try to get rid of, because some funny ancient books says so. Homosexuality is wrong because, uh, it just is.
That's a lot, I only said they should teach math.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
There have been no physiological differences identified as of yet.
The sexual anatomy suggests a reproductive nature.
The only thing that can qualify you is a sexual act.
It seems to be a fetish. In my understanding, most fetishists either made themselves that way at some point in their life consciously or subconsciously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Physiological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians
Well a well referenced (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034)Wikipedia article disagrees.
I'll just say it's one heck of change in fetish if you go from becoming excited by apples to becomming excited by sticks. Sexuality lies deeper, to assure that the species actually create offspring; and some of this sexuality differs, greatly.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 22:34
The Wikipedia article states no such thing as a fact. The article on different sized hypothalamus is from '91, was the only one of its kind and was decided to be biased and inconclusive in the end. The homosexual males in the study all died from Aids while the heterosexuals did not.
That's a lot, I only said they should teach math.
Schools should of course teach against discrimination, in this case homosexuality. Morals needs to be discussed in the class room, else all kind of sick ideas can follow children till they grow up.
Craterus
03-17-2008, 22:34
That would put you at odds with scientific reasoning.
Do you normally rely of feelings for your facts?
Really? Which scientific reasoning is this? Preferably from an unbiased source, if you can...
Even if it isn't decided by birth, no-one takes a conscious decision to become gay or make their child gay. It is something we have no control over, so how is it fair to condemn it?
The Wikipedia article states no such thing as a fact. The article on different sized hypothalamus is from '91, was the only one of its kind and was decided to be biased and inconclusive in the end. The homosexual males in the study all died from Aids while the heterosexuals did not.
Oh, so the world's leading publication of science is suddenly biased now? :laugh4:
Schools should of course teach against discrimination, in this case homosexuality.
Why?
Big_John
03-17-2008, 22:47
lmao at "teaching the benefits of being gay". this thread is hilarious.
that should be a book title or something.
Why?
Why do you want to teach the children maths Fragony? Should they not be able to live in ignorance of the laws of nature if they wanted to? Let their parents teach them how to pray to some thunder god; everything that is essential to them?
this thread is hilarious.
If I only could agree..
Why do you want to teach the children maths Fragony? Should they not be able to live in ignorance of the laws of nature if they wanted to??
The biggest problem is that people just not see it I guess, since when do we allow others to dictate what we are allowed to think. I would consider everything in schools that serves a purpose other then education a problem but some don't, also fine.
Big_John
03-17-2008, 23:18
The biggest problem is that people just not see it I guess, since when do we allow others to dictate what we are allowed to think. I would consider everything in schools that serves a purpose other then education a problem but some don't, also fine.define education.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2008, 23:29
It is my idea that people are not born gay. Many others share that idea. Since there is no "Fact" that they are born that way and no strong evidence, I think that it would be fair to suggest that they are not. Just as fair as saying that they are, at least.
As for "morals" being taught in school. What morals? Where do they come from?
define education.
I can't. It is really relative to culture. In the U.S. sense, we try to inform people of ideas that will help them make our economy more internationally competitive in the future. Aside from that it could literally mean anything.
The American public system should apply the lowest common denominator. ONLY what will benefit the general economy while creating avenues for extracurricular activity for a tertiary benefit.
General = Sciences, Mathematics, Classics
Tertiary = Music, Arts, Athletics, Modern Philosophy, etc.
I am by no means an authority on education.
woad&fangs
03-17-2008, 23:54
Okay, Tuff, I'll concede to you that people choose to become gay and are not born that way(I personally don't care one way or another, it doesn't change my perspective on the issue).
Now that still leaves the question of "what makes them less than equal to heterosexuals?"
Without proof that they are less than equal to heterosexuals I don't see how we can treat homosexuals as less than equal.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2008, 00:19
Okay, Tuff, I'll concede to you that people choose to become gay and are not born that way(I personally don't care one way or another, it doesn't change my perspective on the issue).
Now that still leaves the question of "what makes them less than equal to heterosexuals?"
Without proof that they are less than equal to heterosexuals I don't see how we can treat homosexuals as less than equal.
Don't concede. There isn't enough evidence to concede one way or the other. I've just chosen to not make a claim of inherency without data backing it up. It is safer to assume that it is a fetish in my book "chosen" due to life experience and taste - possibly early on, possibly later on. This can either be conscious or unconscious. It is safe to assume this because this is backed up by experience and we don't need to be scientists to assume it.
Trust me - I would treat a heterosexual the same way as a homosexual in the event that I found out he was gay... And vice versa. I'm just kidding. How are we treating them "less than equal"?
Also, in a truly secular society, people are equal only ideologically; totally constructed by egalitarian tradition (derived from judeo-Christian tradition, which is false and corrupted because it believes homosexual acts to be sinful and couldn't possibly be written by God - I mean he doesn't even have hands or a pen people! cmon?)
I'm all for equal human rights. Marriage is a confused business that I believe has outlived its usefulness in secular society (not in religious societies).
woad&fangs
03-18-2008, 00:25
How are we treating them "less than equal"?
By not allowing gay marriage, or civil partnerships if you prefer that term. I'm not real picky on the wording as long as the benefits from a heterosexual marriage are present in it's equivalency for homosexual couples.
Edit: That wasn't much of a rant in OP video.
Big_John
03-18-2008, 02:11
i just try to put myself in other peoples shoes. or, that is, i try to assume other people behave very generally the same way i do. i can relate to most people, and when i talk to them enough, i get a good feeling for who they are in some sense. this inference of essential sameness is possibly the root of egalitarian behavior (i believe it is).
i believe that sexuality is fundamental to our identity. and since i could never choose to be attracted to a man, i extend that general idea to others. i don't believe people can choose who they are sexually and emotionally attracted to. it seems likely to me that sexual preference is not a "choice" in the common meaning of the word.
there are no doubt people for whom sexuality is not nearly as strongly delineated. but i have no reason to believe that the bulk of homosexuals are simply less picky people that choose strictly homosexual relationships.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2008, 03:03
I just want people to get off of the "fact" that they are born like that. It's still up in the air.
I understand that you are as straight as an arrow. Tell me, when you are making friends with yourself while surfing the web for busty babes - you have never come upon a webpage with creepy things... and been able to keep going? Because I can't say I havn't with a straight face.
It just seems so easy to get fixated on all sorts of things. I do get where you are coming from, but other people who arn't on such a linear sexual path may have a better insight into how fetishes develop. I have brought this up numerous times.
I could hump anything - but I wouldn't. Guys can hump stuff - anything - and become fixated if they arn't careful. Don't lie to yourself.
Big_John
03-18-2008, 04:23
I just want people to get off of the "fact" that they are born like that. It's still up in the air.
I understand that you are as straight as an arrow. Tell me, when you are making friends with yourself while surfing the web for busty babes - you have never come upon a webpage with creepy things... and been able to keep going? Because I can't say I havn't with a straight face.fantasy is very different from reality. i've seen some things, let me tell you. but i can say with as much certainty as i can muster that i'd never want to be involved with anal tentacle donkeys in real life.
it's funny that you mention busty babes though.. oh my god, just last night i ran across this older czech woman named milena velba or velda.. something like that.. i mean wow.. WOW
It just seems so easy to get fixated on all sorts of things. I do get where you are coming from, but other people who arn't on such a linear sexual path may have a better insight into how fetishes develop. I have brought this up numerous times.oh i can be a fetishy bastard, no doubt. but basic sexual attraction just feels fundamentally different to me. i'm no expert on sexual behavior, but i see fetishes as an aspect of the larger behavior/psychology that is sexual identity.
but are fetishes a choice, anyway? i didn't really choose to be a life long milena fan last night.. that choice was made for me.
I could hump anything - but I wouldn't. Guys can hump stuff - anything - and become fixated if they arn't careful. Don't lie to yourself.man, there are many things i would never put my penis near.. no need to lie about that.
i have next to no doubt that i could ever become attracted to a man. not sexually, and especially not emotionally. i can't imagine that i'm unique that way.
The biggest problem is that people just not see it I guess, since when do we allow others to dictate what we are allowed to think. I would consider everything in schools that serves a purpose other then education a problem but some don't, also fine.
It's exactly the same; the Bible says the Earth was created in seven days, who are you disalllow others to think otherwise? And if they are not taught in schools how the Earth actually was created, about evolution and plate tectonics; then where do you expect future generations of scientists to come from?
As for "morals" being taught in school. What morals? Where do they come from?
Morals shouldn't be taught, but discussed.
I can't. It is really relative to culture. In the U.S. sense, we try to inform people of ideas that will help them make our economy more internationally competitive in the future.
Yeah, the happier workers, i.e. less depressive/discriminated, the better for the economy.
define education.
The stuff that is taught at schools minus the stuff that shouldn't be.
Quirinus
03-18-2008, 15:45
You are equating communicable illness with a recessive genetic trait. You are stating that Homosexuals are "closely knit" when they have no common genetic traits and come from every corner of the globe.
All you have said is that both chosen groups have a disease and are therefore comparable, even though one disease is due to the sins of the fathers and the other is due to the sins of the individual. One is a passive transmission and the others is active - and they are as different as different gets.
The point I was making is that homosexuals cannot be considered more 'degenerate' simply because they have a higher proportion of AIDS. Yes, it is spread through free sex, but do heterosexuals also not have free sex?
I proposed that it is not an inherent degeneracy/fault in their lifestyle but a result of segregation-- obviously homosexual men will only want to have sex with other homosexual men (likewise with homosexual women), which increases the chances of encountering an AIDS carrier
For example, I'd postulate that a group of 100 heterosexual men and women with, say, five AIDS carriers, would have roughly the same amount of AIDS carriers at the end of, say, ten years, as a group of 100 homosexual men also with five carriers.
Also, just because a person is gay, doesn't mean that he thinks about buttsex all the time, just as heterosexuals don't think of vaginal sex all the time. It is one of many facets of their personalities. Having a "progressive private school", IMO, is akin to having special schools to teach left-handers the benefits of being left-handed. Or, if you want to nitpick with this analogy, replace "left-handers" with "coffee drinkers".
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.