39
   

Is homosexuality a bad thing?

 
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 02:55 am
@William,
I think your post reveals something about how your brain is programmed here. Not once do you mention the patterns of homosexual women. This de facto shortest route to buttsex mentality demonstrates a shallow understanding of human relationships. I believe you are drawing artificial separations between the nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

A
Relationships
T
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:48 pm

homosexuality is a fact of life

is it a bad thing , well Humanity won't survive in pure gay society now will it ?
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:03 pm
@north,
And how do you know humanity would survive in a purely heterosexual community either? You make assumptions but have no ideal of the complexity and necessity that sexual diversity plays in a healthy society. Would you rather live in a black and white world with no diversity of color? Would the world survive in such absolute duality? Well I propose that without diversity of sexuality humanity would have no more chance of surviving then if it had no re productivity. Conception takes only a moment but the cohesion of society requires a lifetime of nurturing and a variety of interrelationships. Life spans have increased, medicine has evolved with the onset of the sexual revolution. I look at what "male" heterosexuals have done in some countries with making woman cover their faces and walk ten paces behind a man and I am sickened. For centuries women were used as slaves of men and this is the black and white world you seem to think is some sort of utopia or given? Well it is the sexual revolution that has fostered the world we now live in of high technology and greater reason. The greatest societies that have ever prospered had sexual diversity. Sexual diversity and equality is the pro creator not intercourse. Without osmosis, cellular division, the sun, moon, air or the earth we would all die too so what is your point? All of these together are life givers as is human diversity and individuality. For the body to say because I am not the eye, foot or ears or hand I am not of the body yet the body needs all of it parts respectively to be considered whole. The same goes for humanity it takes all kinds for the world to go round. Your myopic statement is ignorant at best. We are interdependent on each other and our environment not just sexual organs.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 07:43 am
failures art wrote:

I think your post reveals something about how your brain is programmed here.


Thank you.

failures art wrote:
Not once do you mention the patterns of homosexual women.


I didn’t have too. I knew someone would. That’s par for the course and an essential rationalization homosexuals always use to rationalize their behavior. If one can so can the other; it’s a trite argument that goes nowhere but in circles. It can be understood by most that lesbianism is a consequence of woman responding to the assumed autonomy of man. If woman cannot receive the appropriate love from a man, she will naturally adhere to that which is the most familiar to her; another woman who knows how she should be treated. Hell, it’s just logical.

failures art wrote:
This de facto shortest route to buttsex mentality demonstrates a shallow understanding of human relationships.


I like be shallow in this instance. I’ll let you enjoy the ‘deep probing’ yourself. There are many young people who visit these forums and my hopes are to dissuade them from going to extremes of self gratification. You say “human relationships”. North is right if such behavior does catch on, you can forget any human relationships.

failures art wrote:
I believe you are drawing artificial separations between the nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.


No, I’m trying to understand and define the one; between man and woman. That’s the universal one. All others are structures that have been created because it is not fully understood what that man woman relationship should be.

north wrote:

homosexuality is a fact of life
is it a bad thing , well Humanity won't survive in pure gay society now will it ?


Damn, I hate the use of that word that was robbed to identify that “society”. Gay, my ass! Whoops!! No pun intended. I agree North but those who participate in that lifestyle will always come up with erroneous analogies to circumvent any recognition of that very fact. Like this one's Rex offered below.

RexRed wrote:

And how do you know humanity would survive in a purely heterosexual community either? You make assumptions but have no ideal of the complexity and necessity that sexual diversity plays in a healthy society.


Sexual diversity necessary in a healthy society?????? To what end? Like I said it’s all about self gratification. AIDS is a healthy society? Sexual diversification means screwing anything. No thanks, I choose not to live in such a healthy society.

RexRed wrote:
Would you rather live in a black and white world with no diversity of color?


Homosexuality and color? Please explain.

RexRed wrote:
Would the world survive in such absolute duality? Well I propose that without diversity of sexuality humanity would have no more chance of surviving then if it had no re productivity.


Are you saying that sexual diversity is more important than reproduction? Surely not! Yes, the male female paradigm is not understood in all it’s entirety, and because of that we are free to screw anything that stands still long enough. That is sexual diversity, isn’t it!?
Hell then no one is safe; time for chastity belts for everyone.

RexRed wrote:
Conception takes only a moment but the cohesion of society requires a lifetime of nurturing and a variety of interrelationships.


Agreed, yes and so? Varity of inter-relationships? With who, what and where?

RexRed wrote:
Life spans have increased, medicine has evolved with the onset of the sexual revolution. I look at what "male" heterosexuals have done in some countries with making woman cover their faces and walk ten paces behind a man and I am sickened.


Poor diversion. That’s male autonomy personified. Yes, I am sickened too. You’re using that to justify sodomy? I fail to see the connection.

RexRed wrote:
For centuries women were used as slaves of men and this is the black and white world you seem to think is some sort of utopia or given?


And homosexuality is? Men can enslave young boys too. Still I fail to see the link that says sodomy is any kind of a solution.

RexRed wrote:
Well it is the sexual revolution that has fostered the world we now live in of high technology and greater reason.


Really? Please elaborate.

RexRed wrote:
The greatest societies that have ever prospered had sexual diversity.


Name one and please define what you think prosperity is, thanks.

RexRed wrote:
Sexual diversity and equality is the pro creator not intercourse.


Yes, Rex sexual intercourse should not be just a recreational activity, but sexual diversity and equality are not the solutions we can just bide our time with. Yes, we have figured out ways to have children without intercourse. Hell let’s just put them on the market and sell them to those who find sexual intercourse appalling. Damn! What a solution, huh!

RexRed wrote:
Without osmosis, cellular division, the sun, moon, air or the earth we would all die too so what is your point?


Wow, what a stretch. Ha!

RexRed wrote:
All of these together are life givers as is human diversity and individuality.


Man is the life giver Rex. Yes, it is very important where he deposits his seed. There is only one place for life to continue if love, caring and nurturing are ever going to be understood and define and alternative lifestyles and sexual orientation as it is presently define just won’t get it. Like I said you have opposable thumbs, use them until we can better understand the male female universal paradigm. It just that simple.

RexRed wrote:
For the body to say because I am not the eye, foot or ears or hand I am not of the body yet the body needs all of it parts respectively to be considered whole.


Wow, a lot of emphasis on the body Rex! We know we are more than that. Please do a little more research of what selfishness means.

RexRed wrote:
The same goes for humanity it takes all kinds for the world to go round.


Wow, what a great rationalization. That solves everything doesn’t it, damn!

RexRed wrote:
Your myopic statement is ignorant at best.


No! North just stated a fact.

RexRed wrote:
We are interdependent on each other and our environment not just sexual organs.


Now try explaining that to a homosexual. Any man, any time and any where. Have you been to the Folsum Street Fair in San Francsico? You will see how so very proud they are of their sexual organs and all the fun they have with them. God damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

William
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:26 am
One of the most typical Homosexual justifying selling brand ideas consists in the assessment that Homosexuality also exists in Nature and that thus therefore should be considered natural, which is a complete understatement on the facts going on...

1 - Homosexuality is exclusively Human.
2 - Animals in Nature at best are bisexual...and most of the time do prefer the opposite sex.

I personally don´t consider Homosexuality in itself a huge problem but their invasive attitude towards the majority´s and its millenarian institutions proves to be...censorship of a proud heterosexual ideology is no more dignifying than the opposite attitude towards them...

Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 01:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !
it would be bad enough if they wanted no one to disagree with them, but it is worse. They want to have all them who disagree with them to be considered sick, in need of reeducating . This is worse.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  4  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 01:57 pm
@William,
William. Who here is advocating screwing anything? You are the only one I hear mentioning that. AIDS and gays what is the correlation? Aids came from bats biting primates not gays sex... Perhaps the AIDS epidemic will lead to research that will, again, prolong lives. Who is advocating promiscuity? Gay marriage is about fidelity and monogamy... Yes I am insinuating that sexual diversity if greater than reproduction. That is unless you are advocating making bastard children with no social structure to raise them... Is it better to force children to live in abusive homes with hateful relationships between violent parents or allow parents to migrate toward a better living situation in MUTUAL HUMAN sexual diversity. Reproduction without diverse social structure is like sex without love. Are you just a penis or is there more to you than that? I doubt it, I don't even think you have a penis... Heterosexuals can screw and be screwed by anything too. All the more reason for gay marriage to have legs and stand
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:21 pm
It has long been proved that homosexuality begins when the baby is still in the womb.

A child's sexual organs are determined by hormone levels at a specific period of pregnancy. Sexual orientation of the brain is also determined by hormonal levels after the determination of the sexual organs.

If the hormone levels are sufficiently different at the two times of determination, a child can easily have male organs with a "female" brain.

It also appears to be much easier to create male homosexuality than female. At this point in our knowledge it seems that androgen levels are important in female homosexuality.

To ban homosexuals, it would require infanticide.

For those of you who believe in God, how could you explain how homosexuality is created? Did God goof, or did he plan homosexuality? If that is true, then why do some people hate homosexuals?

BBB
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:22 pm
@RexRed,
I am impressed by your measured dispassionate response. I'm not sure those parading their mindless bigotry will appreciate it; but good on you just the same.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Bisexuality exists in nature and for this reason bisexual genes double and create homosexuals. Not only in humans but in animals too. It is science... If you have two bisexual mating animals then the genes will double and every so often and create homosexuals. THIS IS NATURE AND NATURAL. The "science" is not exclusive to humans but the SCIENCE also works exactly the same in animals. You are simply wrong in your contrived assumption. This is why religion is a joke.

Rational and reasoning humans, because of our highly evolved brain size, have social acceptance of our natural and illustrious sexual diversity where animals are, well, based more on selfish instinct (not unlike some humans) rather than reason .

Lower animal instincts like, the selfish thought, because I perceive I am straight and male then thus, that is the only way that is acceptable and superior. Over bearing males are oblivious to the environment that made them and they insist the were created by some god with a penis who impregnates 13 year old maidens. Though many homosexual animals (including humans) physically work out and body build and make themselves stronger as protective measures, one consequence is that they shelter females from domineering males who would have them subservient, wear veils and walk ten paces behind them and deny them an education and the right to vote.

What is your proof that homosexuality does not exist in nature? Science proves that homosexuality does naturally occur in nature with genetics. All females are bisexual but most prefer men. Some men are bisexual too and some are gay but act like they are straight. When you pair a bisexual woman with a bisexual male the chances of a gay creature resulting is great. Women were created "before" males, for the y chromosome is a mutation of the x chromosome. Bisexuality is the initial state which "the creator" devised and heterosexuality is a mutation of that. So the bible is just a male chauvinist document that is contrary to the TRUTH. I am proud to be against the bible in most matters and stand with science upon "solid ground" and benevolent and tolerant diverse society of reason and TRUTH.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Oh this is a good thread to let you know that your picture on your profile made you appear very gay.

Checking out your profile page to get an idea how we might arrange the meeting you seem to desire so greatly with me.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:43 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I believe genes code for the chemical balance and make up of a fetus also, so I am not disagreeing with you. The chemicals can expose a fetus to many physical changes while we ALL start out as females and chemicals change us there is still the underlying xy chromosomes either present or appearing as xx or combinations thereof. Nice post BB.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 02:44 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Hehe, I had to erase my response a few times and make it "nicer" Smile
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:08 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Oh this is a good thread to let you know that your picture on your profile made you appear very gay.

Checking out your profile page to get an idea how we might arrange the meeting you seem to desire so greatly with me.
Says the demented misogynistic coward who likes to disgust women while hiding in anonymity.

No one wants to meet you. I’d like to see you own your words so the people who know you can judge you accordingly. But you’re too cowardly for that.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:09 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

Hehe, I had to erase my response a few times and make it "nicer" Smile
Fair enough. Smile
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:11 pm
@RexRed,
I am really amazed by all the anti-gay remarks!
I would like to ask a question to all those who are anti-gay, this will have to be a hypothetical question as I do not have any other way of asking it!

If your mother and father were good to you growing up I would like for you to try and imagine that they had adopted you. You do love them correct? I sure hope so.
Now try and amagine that they were both males, I do know that this is a twist of the mind but I am only asking you to try.
If these same two people who have raised you both had penises would you have less respect for them than what you do now only because they both have penises?
Would you think of your mother and father the same as you think of gay people today? Would they have less value to you even though they shared their lifes with you?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:17 pm
@RexRed,
1 - Bisexual genes ? Oh that is the best joke I heard so far in years !...

2 - I am not Religious so don´t bring Religion and confusion where there is none on my part...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:30 pm
@RexRed,
...One step forward and two steps back...you can dance the tune all right ! Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 03:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
First of all, I don´t have nothing against the rightful existence of gay people, my problem resumes with their attitude towards non-gay, the majority by the way, (you seam to forget the obvious) assaulting their millenarian traditions and cultural processes.

Gay marriage was recently approved in Portugal....and my position on this issue was against not because of the very much needed juridical protection that I think they (the gay) also are entitled, but because of the lack of distinction between institutions that we are also equally entitled to protect as a dignifying part of the mainstream culture.
Simple and without demagoguery !

So don´t bring me to the anti gay lobby crap complaining talk because I am in neither´s side.
(this is a general remark although in direct reply to Reasoning Logic at some specific issues)
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

First of all, I don´t have nothing against the rightful existence of gay people, my problem resumes with their attitude towards non-gay, the majority by the way, (you seam to forget the obvious) assaulting their millenarian traditions and cultural processes.
And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 10:15:31