While that is pretty amusing, it has no bearing on why a human man and another human man, (or two women) should not be allowed to be married. Contrary to stereotypical belief, bestiality and homosexuality are not the same thing.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Example of why marriage in America will be defined as between a man and a woman:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/wom … 39590.html
Poll
Whats your Opinion on Homosexuality?
| Don't really care | 32% | 32% - 71 | ||||
| Fine with me | 38% | 38% - 83 | ||||
| All [i]gays[/i] burn in hell, lesbiens are OK with me | 20% | 20% - 44 | ||||
| There all Evil and Disgusting | 8% | 8% - 18 | ||||
| Total: 216 | ||||||
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.Stratocaster wrote:
Insulting to married people?? LOL welcome to redneck wonderland!!
Maybe you didn't know homosexuality is sometimes not an option, read a bit about genetics, then
maybe you will see the light. Some people are born one sex but as get get into adult age, they do
completely change to the other. And also chromosome problems, and many factors you would never
understand.
Right lol. I wish I could skate board that well. Most riding instructors are gay tho... hmmm,.. wait !
Oooooooh nooooooooooo..!
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.
'Kay, I've officially decided that I don't like that nix0n guy.
I'm not a religeous person and I reckon if God did exist he'd be a self-righteous arsehole, and wouldn't have many friends, but here's a question:
If God didn't mean lesbians to exist, then why the fuck did he make women so attractive?
Your guess is as good as mine.
- Sorry to all you religeous guys, but as you would so believe, I'll leave it for God to judge. I promise you the jury won't be out for long on that one.
P.S: Actually the real debate for you religeous guys is if God didn't mean homosexuality to exist, why did he MAKE people homosexuals? It's not a life choice you know.
I'm not a religeous person and I reckon if God did exist he'd be a self-righteous arsehole, and wouldn't have many friends, but here's a question:
If God didn't mean lesbians to exist, then why the fuck did he make women so attractive?
Your guess is as good as mine.
- Sorry to all you religeous guys, but as you would so believe, I'll leave it for God to judge. I promise you the jury won't be out for long on that one.
P.S: Actually the real debate for you religeous guys is if God didn't mean homosexuality to exist, why did he MAKE people homosexuals? It's not a life choice you know.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
The fact is that weather you have sex with a man or a woman your still perfectly human and should be entitled to exactly the same rights. I mean i am hetrosexual and dont find men attractive but who cares if for example my neighbour does? It doesnt matter what it says in certain religious texts you have to open up your eyes to the fact that no one chooses their sexual orientation. And therefore should have exactly the same rights as everyone else
You would make a good politician. You put words right into my mouth and yet I NEVER SAID THEM. Man I hate the assholes. For all you or anyone else know I may be for gay marriage. I never stated my side. I only argued that his logic was flawed.mcminty wrote:
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.
My opinion on homosexuality is this:......from an old friend
" A man can bulid 10,000 bridges, if he sucks one dick, he will never be known as a bridge builder"
" A man can bulid 10,000 bridges, if he sucks one dick, he will never be known as a bridge builder"
I think you should respect everyones wishes, if they only have feelings for the same sex, so what? I admit I find it weird seeing two guys kiss (obviously not girls but thats the hormones speaking eh!?), but at the end of the day thats my problem not theirs, its up to me to deal with it not for them to accomodate me.
My guess as someone who isn't a biologist or psychiatrist on the whole nature vs nurture re:being gay is that I believe there are a bunch of genes which make homosexuality more likely, but also certain social factors that may make it more likely. No guesses as to how much more likely it makes them, just that it does.
well since it is aa old as the human race itself, you are probably right.Pubic wrote:
My guess as someone who isn't a biologist or psychiatrist on the whole nature vs nurture re:being gay is that I believe there are a bunch of genes which make homosexuality more likely, but also certain social factors that may make it more likely. No guesses as to how much more likely it makes them, just that it does.
they can do what they want I don't care, but please stop protesting for equal treatment by demanding SPECIAL treatment.
perfect example: Allot of work places will recognize a "domestic partner" ( a same sex partner )and extend health insurance to cover them, but will not recognize a traditional relationship and offer the same benefit.
First off, we are speaking of homosexuality. Gay is slang.mcminty wrote:
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.
Second, I seem to remember reading that "they have " Found and Isolated a Homosexual Gene.
( although my gf an MD. doubts it. This is not her field though)
Since I doubt most parents would "Want " to have homosexual child and I am assuming even a Homosexual who adopted a child for legitimate purposes (Not as a sex Toy) would have a strong drive to further their blood line. IE. have natural grandchildren.
It seems to me that most "Real Homosexuals"* would be on a sharp decline in the not to distant future when they figure out how to delete or impede the function of that gene.
Good or bad thing ? I can not know, nore is it my place to say.
Lets not forget the bigest Foe the Homosexual population faces is Nature itself.
* (Not someone attempting to jump start a Hollywood career)
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-02 09:24:16)
Caution ! attempt at humor below. Caution !Skruples wrote:
While that is pretty amusing, it has no bearing on why a human man and another human man, (or two women) should not be allowed to be married. Contrary to stereotypical belief, bestiality and homosexuality are not the same thing.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Example of why marriage in America will be defined as between a man and a woman:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/wom … 39590.html
I do believe however, You must Exit the Heterosexual Highway at some point to Find the back road of Bestiality Street. Like Pedophile Drive, I would not be surprised to learn you needed to take Homosexual Avenue for a few miles before you found it.,
Why would O.J. choose to cut off his ex-wifes head and be investigated and loose a bunch of money??? Why would Micheal Jackson choose to sleep with little boys, why would a thief or killer choose to risk jail time???mcminty wrote:
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.
but the biggest question is..... WHY WOULD YOU WRITE SOMETHING SO STUPID FOR ALL TO SEE???
Let me guess, you were born gay. Popped right out with a cock in your mouth.
There is no gay gene. If there were one we would all know about it. Consider also the fact that for a trait to survive it has to be passed on from it parents. I've never heard of homosexuals reproducing so this trait would have died out the moment it sprang up. Homosexuality is caused by hormonal imbalances, pyschological and social factors.Horseman 77 wrote:
First off, we are speaking of homosexuality. Gay is slang.mcminty wrote:
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I wasn't aware there was a gay gene Mr. scientist. And to say every gay person is that way because of genetics is ignorant. Course you said sometimes but then again did not offer an explanation for the other gays.
Second, I seem to remember reading that "they have " Found and Isolated a Homosexual Gene.
( although my gf an MD. doubts it. This is not her field though)
Since I doubt most parents would "Want " to have homosexual child and I am assuming even a Homosexual who adopted a child for legitimate purposes (Not as a sex Toy) would have a strong drive to further their blood line. IE. have natural grandchildren.
It seems to me that most "Real Homosexuals"* would be on a sharp decline in the not to distant future when they figure out how to delete or impede the function of that gene.
Good or bad thing ? I can not know, nore is it my place to say.
Lets not forget the bigest Foe the Homosexual population faces is Nature itself.
* (Not someone attempting to jump start a Hollywood career)
Whether anyone choses to be accepting of them or not is their own problem
Correct , I believe it refered to a corruption or anomaoly in the splicing sequence. Not a gene itself.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
There is no gay gene. If there were one we would all know about it. Consider also the fact that for a trait to survive it has to be passed on from it parents. I've never heard of homosexuals reproducing so this trait would have died out the moment it sprang up. Homosexuality is caused by hormonal imbalances, pyschological and social factors.Horseman 77 wrote:
First off, we are speaking of homosexuality. Gay is slang.mcminty wrote:
So people would just choose to be (for lack of better word) harassed and isolated by "mainstream" society?
Second, I seem to remember reading that "they have " Found and Isolated a Homosexual Gene.
( although my gf an MD. doubts it. This is not her field though)
Since I doubt most parents would "Want " to have homosexual child and I am assuming even a Homosexual who adopted a child for legitimate purposes (Not as a sex Toy) would have a strong drive to further their blood line. IE. have natural grandchildren.
It seems to me that most "Real Homosexuals"* would be on a sharp decline in the not to distant future when they figure out how to delete or impede the function of that gene.
Good or bad thing ? I can not know, nore is it my place to say.
Lets not forget the bigest Foe the Homosexual population faces is Nature itself.
* (Not someone attempting to jump start a Hollywood career)
Whether anyone choses to be accepting of them or not is their own problem
I think I read this in " The Smitsonian " About 97 ? This periodical has been dumbed down a bit to capture a larger audience. But I don't think they would make an error like that. For that You would need to read " TIME MAGAZINE "
True love dosen't have boarders. Not between sexes.
They aren't demanding special treatment, merely equal treatment. If they aren't allowed to marry then they won't be treated equally. Marriage is a special thing to be accorded a deal of respect (where it is done solely out of love), but to deny gay couples the right to marry is to deny them them due respect.lowing wrote:
they can do what they want I don't care, but please stop protesting for equal treatment by demanding SPECIAL treatment.
Since civil unions in various countries seem to have been bought about largely so gay couples can have recognised unions, should we perhaps deny heterosexual couples the right to civil unions?
And what of athiesm/agnosticism? A common argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious thing, yet athiests/agnostics are as free to marry as any christian or hindu. If the religious argument is to remain valid, then athiests/agnostics must be denied the right to marry. If they are not denied the right to marry then the religious argument is invalid, since non-religious marriages already take place. I'd REALLY like to hear everyones opinion on this one.
Assuming for a moment that manipulation of human genetic material to produce offspring with certain traits is deemed "acceptable", and the technology becomes available, my opinion would be that there should be no problem with this. Parents are free to bring their kids up the way they want, and if they want to bring up their kid like that then I see no problem with taking a "gay gene" out of their own DNA. However, thats all assuming its okay, and that I think its okay. I've yet to fully think through and form an opinion on genetic manipulation, currently I only believe manipulation to remove medical problems is okay.Horseman 77 wrote:
It seems to me that most "Real Homosexuals"* would be on a sharp decline in the not to distant future when they figure out how to delete or impede the function of that gene.
Good or bad thing ? I can not know, nore is it my place to say.
Perhaps you should be asking yourself the same question...Major_Spittle wrote:
but the biggest question is..... WHY WOULD YOU WRITE SOMETHING SO STUPID FOR ALL TO SEE???
Why do you insist on labelling gays as perverts, pig-fuckers, kiddie-fiddlers etc? The highest number of rapes are by far committed by straight people yet I note you're not calling most of the people on this forum rapists...and anyway, you've shown you don't mind watching two women going at it so clearly you're okay with gays on some level...do you have some, ah, "repressed thoughts" hiding in the back of your brain? Anything you don't want to admit, perhaps?
You make some good points, but it is special treatment. You don't see any "straight white guy" parades on St. Pats day do you.....Or, "straight white guy magizine". I do not throw my sexuallity in anyones face. I don't want anyone elses thrown in mine. IE parades etc.Pubic wrote:
They aren't demanding special treatment, merely equal treatment. If they aren't allowed to marry then they won't be treated equally. Marriage is a special thing to be accorded a deal of respect (where it is done solely out of love), but to deny gay couples the right to marry is to deny them them due respect.lowing wrote:
they can do what they want I don't care, but please stop protesting for equal treatment by demanding SPECIAL treatment.
Since civil unions in various countries seem to have been bought about largely so gay couples can have recognised unions, should we perhaps deny heterosexual couples the right to civil unions?
And what of athiesm/agnosticism? A common argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious thing, yet athiests/agnostics are as free to marry as any christian or hindu. If the religious argument is to remain valid, then athiests/agnostics must be denied the right to marry. If they are not denied the right to marry then the religious argument is invalid, since non-religious marriages already take place. I'd REALLY like to hear everyones opinion on this one.
The fact that they are putting new "hate crime" legislation on the books to make (so it would seem) "more" of a crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a a hetrosexual seems asking for special treatment as well. I think ( correct me if I am wrong ) ANY murder would be a hate crime.
What about the "Playboy"........lowing wrote:
Or, "straight white guy magizine". I do not throw my sexuallity in anyones face. I don't want anyone elses thrown in mine.
I'll have to agree with you on this one, lowing. I've always thought hate crime legislation was bullshit. A murder is a murder, no matter the reason. Is it any less of a crime to kill some fucker for sleeping with your wife than for hating their race/sexual preference/etc.? Not IMO. I don't understand why they need to make stiffer penalties for certain circumstances. Aren't the penalties stiff enough as it is?lowing wrote:
The fact that they are putting new "hate crime" legislation on the books to make (so it would seem) "more" of a crime to harm a homosexual than it is to harm a a hetrosexual seems asking for special treatment as well. I think ( correct me if I am wrong ) ANY murder would be a hate crime.
What about it? Read Playgirl then...Playboy is for people who want to look at naked women......Unless there is a law forbidding lesbians to subscribe, your point is mute.ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
What about the "Playboy"........lowing wrote:
Or, "straight white guy magizine". I do not throw my sexuallity in anyones face. I don't want anyone elses thrown in mine.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-03 07:51:16)
Ya know what? I posted earlier that you don't see any "straight white guy" parades or deminstrations. That could be wrong as it would appear the KKK would apply to this.
But even if it does apply, there are more counter deminstrators than there our deminstrators in place to protest their rights to being a "straight white guy". lol
But even if it does apply, there are more counter deminstrators than there our deminstrators in place to protest their rights to being a "straight white guy". lol
Nudie magazine day!ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
What about the "Playboy"........lowing wrote:
Or, "straight white guy magizine". I do not throw my sexuallity in anyones face. I don't want anyone elses thrown in mine.
Does playboy really count as straight pride?
And what if a Lesbian buys playboy. That automaticaly makes it gay. haha