Adam Easy Wishes Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 You are ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Found Power Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 If we were all gay the population of the world would die outQUOTE]stressing how unnatural homosexuality is Do you hate Jews, Gypsies and Blacks too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Easy Wishes Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Don't forget Asians. A pesky lot, those Asians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ForbiddenFruitcake Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 basically what i think is: be who you want. i kind of agree that perhaps this sort of publicity may make more teenagers etc declare their sexuality, but its more than likely these people would be gay anyway, and this is just making it more acceptable to 'come out'.'fashionable bisexuality' i think that its just that-'fashionable'. it'll soon die out, and then we'll see who the real bisexual people are.as for whether gay people are 'defected', they themselves claim to be 'born like that', so its not a choice, but of course it's not negative, but i don't think its right to have all these 'gay pride' events...whats to be proud of? its not an achievement, just a way of life. we don't have 'green-eyed pride week', do we.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 i think the situation is that sociaty is reverting back to almost the 60s and 70s of sexual freedom, a new generation of rebellious cultural norms have swept in, however being sexually free to do what you want is seen as acceptable. therefore i think it's just been pumped up a notch, so instead of having intercourse with every single member of the opposite sex, people tend to just have intercourse with ever single member of the human race... and then some anyways i think i'm babbling night shift does that to a man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 i think Paul's point is a correct as the little old ladies that run around saying, " nobody was gay in my day." Of course the majority of gay people hid the fact they were gay when there was a huge possibility of been beaten up etc. I believe (as others have said) it is more a case of been gay is more excepted in modern times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarmaTsunami Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 whoever said that for someone to be gay there must be something wrong with the genes of that person, it's a long running debate, the fact is scientists have yet to prove the existence of a ''gay gene''...however, i'm not saying there's nothing to do with science at all...that would be silly...there must be some biological factor resulting in my attraction to women instead of men...although to say it's a defect is even sillier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Im not a scientist' date=' but there has to be some sort of problem in the genes. Think about people born looking female yet with male genitalia. Not a defect? perfectly fine? a homosexual person is surely someone born with the physical appearance of man, yet with the brain of a woman - perfectly normal? nothing gone wrong?[/quote']Err, no. A homosexual person is someone who's decided or enjoys having sex with someone of the same sex. What you're thinking of is some strange Frankenstein experiment where they've taken the brains out of a woman and put them into a man. The Nazis had a nice line in scientific research going on where they believed homosexuality to be a defect, I believe some of their examples remain immersed in bell jars of formaldehyde to this day. Unfortunately, you'll be dissappointed to hear, they and many others failed to find any biological differences between a straight man and a homosexual man.Our of curiousity, do you seriously believe that someone's disposition to finding things attractive is purely down to physical alteration of genes? How, then, do you suggest that these suggested genes become hereditary from gay people? Surely if this was the case then homosexuality would be obsolete by now, that it would have been bred out of the population as the majority of the other of your perceived defects have been. By the same token, do you have a specific type of person you find attractive? For example, some people say they prefer blondes to red heads... Is that genetic?You also seem to think that the natural drive is to procreate and make offspring, discounting completely the fact that we've got free will and all. So it's equally unnatural and probably a defect of some sort of two people decide they want to live together and not have babies? I take it heterosexual men or women enjoying anal sex is unnatural and they're only probably enjoying it because they've got a genetic defect of some sort?BUT, back to the main question...I agree that society is probably more open these days and hence people find it easier to come out. I think people are too quick to label themselves, so you often get people saying they are definately bisexual during a period of experimentation only to go one way or the other after a few months - To be fair some people do stay bisexual too. Not a bad thing, aside from the over-eagerness to define their sexuality in such a strong way when it's obviously not fully matured.I think society sends mixed signals about homosexuality. For example, the classic FHM / Maxim fantasy of a heterosexual blokes lesbian girlfriend. Oxymorons abound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project S.A.M. Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Nullmouse has gone and beaten me to a lot of the points I was going to make, but if I could just follow up...So homosexuality is a "defect"...What is the essential difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual? Their gender towards which their sexual desire is directed. As Alan has pointed out, there is no good reason to believe that sexuality is genetically determined, but even if there is a "gay gene", it's not really significant: it's not the actual gene itself that is the issue, but the effects of that gene. In which case whether or not the gene is a defect or not depends on the status of its effect, which is a particular type of sexual desire. So not a physical attribute, and not like a physical disability. The question is whether the desire is defective.Is the homosexual condition, if you like, defective because it's "unnatural" or prevents what human beings ought to be doing, ie reproducing? Being homosexual doesn't physically prevent reproduction, but for the sake of argument let's say homosexuals avoid procreation. So the purpose of human life is to reproduce? Every human life? In which case heterosexual people who choose not to have children have the same status as homosexuals, on this view. The same surely goes, not only for anal sex, but any heterosexual act that does not aim towards reproduction. On this way of thinking, sex is only correct if it is for reproduction, if homosexual sex is "defective" or wrong because won't result in reproduction.It seems a remarkably narrow understanding of the value of human life if, as bryn seems to be suggesting, any life without reproduction is defective and unnatural, not worth living, even.Also, what is "natural" but that which occurs in nature? If homosexuality is genetic then it is natural. Homosexuality has been observed in animals, too, incidentally. One idea is that some proportion of homosexuality is desirable in a population as it is one means (among, of course, many) by which overpopulation is avoided. Given the average human sex drive, if every sexual act was reproductive then population growth would be uncontrollable, or if it was controlled it would be by staggeringly high infant mortality. So, if you want to argue over what's "natural", the "it's not normal" and "what if everybody was gay" arguments don't hold up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ibid Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Despite spirited attempts by scientists, there has been, as yet, no gay gene discovered. My own view is that homosexuality is a sexual preference, no different from a straight guy liking only certain types of women such as fat girls or blond girls.I have a friend, for instance, who will only shag married woman!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Just married women! lol thats freaky.The "being gay is not natural" is bullshit. Who is it not natural to? Define natural! Obviously gay people find it natural! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Err' date=' no. A homosexual person is someone who's decided or enjoys having sex with someone of the same sex. What you're thinking of is some strange Frankenstein experiment where they've taken the brains out of a woman and put them into a man. The Nazis had a nice line in scientific research going on where they believed homosexuality to be a defect, I believe some of their examples remain immersed in bell jars of formaldehyde to this day. Unfortunately, you'll be dissappointed to hear, they and many others failed to find any biological differences between a straight man and a homosexual man.Our of curiousity, do you seriously believe that someone's disposition to finding things attractive is purely down to physical alteration of genes? How, then, do you suggest that these suggested genes become hereditary from gay people? Surely if this was the case then homosexuality would be obsolete by now, that it would have been bred out of the population as the majority of the other of your perceived defects have been. By the same token, do you have a specific type of person you find attractive? For example, some people say they prefer blondes to red heads... Is that genetic?You also seem to think that the natural drive is to procreate and make offspring, discounting completely the fact that we've got free will and all. So it's equally unnatural and probably a defect of some sort of two people decide they want to live together and not have babies? I take it heterosexual men or women enjoying anal sex is unnatural and they're only probably enjoying it because they've got a genetic defect of some sort?BUT, back to the main question...I agree that society is probably more open these days and hence people find it easier to come out. I think people are too quick to label themselves, so you often get people saying they are definately bisexual during a period of experimentation only to go one way or the other after a few months - To be fair some people do stay bisexual too. Not a bad thing, aside from the over-eagerness to define their sexuality in such a strong way when it's obviously not fully matured.I think society sends mixed signals about homosexuality. For example, the classic FHM / Maxim fantasy of a heterosexual blokes lesbian girlfriend. Oxymorons abound.[/quote']Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is not a decision that one takes. Shit, who would choose a lifestyle whose practice puts you in danger of others who believe it wrong - in danger of being beaten or even murdered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is not a decision that one takes. Shit' date=' who would choose a lifestyle whose practice puts you in danger of others who believe it wrong - in danger of being beaten or even murdered.[/quote']Animal researchers and abortion doctors. (All jobs, granted, but the point is plenty of people are persecuted through things they choose to persue).But without being flippant, I know what you mean - You've picked up on my poor phrasing in the first line of my reply:Err, no. A homosexual person is someone who's decided or enjoys having sex with someone of the same sex. When what I should have said was something more like:Err, no. A homosexual person is someone who prefers or exclusively has sex with someone of the same sex. As a counter point, without the social pressure and fear of retribution would more people experiment with their sexuality? If there was no stigma to being gay would people worry over who gave them a blow job? This issue's far too complicated to pin on just one cause, my knee-jerk rant was against the ludicrous idea that people should be viewed as genetic freaks because of who they sleep with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I just found out that the "gay pride" thing in duthie park this weekend, was actually funded with PUBLIC MONEY from Aberdeen Council. I think that is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Easy Wishes Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I just found out that the "gay pride" thing in duthie park this weekend' date=' was actually funded with PUBLIC MONEY from Aberdeen Council. I think that is unacceptable.[/quote'] Agreed. Not because of what it's 'celebrating', if you will...but because the event itself is an entirely ridiculous concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Animal researchers and abortion doctors. (All jobs' date=' granted, but the point is plenty of people are persecuted through things they choose to persue).But without being flippant, I know what you mean - You've picked up on my poor phrasing in the first line of my reply:When what I should have said was something more like:As a counter point, without the social pressure and fear of retribution would more people experiment with their sexuality? If there was no stigma to being gay would people worry over who gave them a blow job? This issue's far too complicated to pin on just one cause, my knee-jerk rant was against the ludicrous idea that people should be viewed as genetic freaks because of who they sleep with.[/quote']Yes, as you yourself have indicated, these as forms of employment, so to use these as comparisons, is a little silly. Sexual orientation is inate.And yes, I do believe that people do not behave as they'd like for fear of persecution. I think it scandalous that a same sex couple cannot demonstrate affection in a public place, cannot enjoy what other couples take for granted. For instance, holding hands. Or kissing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Agreed. Not because of what it's 'celebrating'' date=' if you will...but because the event itself is an entirely ridiculous concept.[/quote']Can you please explain why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Easy Wishes Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Can you please explain why? Why the need for an event to celebrate one's sexuality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Can you please explain why?I don't think homo/bi/trans sexuality should be promoted, and certainly not with public money, in a public space, in a park where families go with their kids. You dont see a "straight pride" event anywhere....personally I think sexual deviants are made, not born. I'm not a homophobe, I just dislike people who act camp, people who obsess about their sexuality, or people who think its trendy to be a bi-sexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Why the need for an event to celebrate one's sexuality?While heterosexuality is believed acceptable, homosexuality (at least by many) is not. Pride is an opportunity for people - to be who they are, to say openly how they feel. It also provides a safe space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I don't think homo/bi/trans sexuality should be promoted' date=' and certainly not with public money, in a public space, in a park where families go with their kids. You dont see a "straight pride" event anywhere....personally I think sexual deviants are made, not born. I'm not a homophobe, I just dislike people who act camp, people who obsess about their sexuality, or people who think its trendy to be a bi-sexual.[/quote']The promotion of homosexuality? That is a nonsense. As I've said already, sexual orientation is inate. You cannot teach it.So, you think homosexuality disgusting? That children should not see such things? Such depravity? *smacks hand against forehead*To your second point - I have already dealt with it. Go see my last post.People who obsess about their sexuality? You'll find that lesbians and gay men are no different from most other folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 So' date=' you think homosexuality disgusting? That children should not see such things? Such depravity? *smacks hand against forehead*To your second point - I have already dealt with it. Go see my last post.People who obsess about their sexuality? You'll find that lesbians and gay men are no different from most other folks.[/quote']I never said homosexuality was disgusting. I said it's disgusting that public money should be spent on promoting it in a public place. And yeah, I think children shouldnt be exposed to such things before a certain age (i.e puberty, when there sexuality is formed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 And yeah' date=' I think children shouldnt be exposed to such things before a certain age (i.e puberty, when there sexuality is formed).[/quote']Exposed to what? Having a fun day out in the park?Or do you believe that a child might become gay if they are exposed to too many gay people? Is it catching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Heres an interesting quote for you:"Language consciousness first develops at age 4. Until then, the little child only saw the world in pictures. Language and logic are incomprehensible to the child for a long time. Thus the child understands what he sees on television before speaking. He understands the pictures in magazines and advertising billboards like illiterates. Children who test crack at age 7, rob their schoolmates at 8 and try to rape their younger sisters at 9 are only testing out what they already saw in the media. The power of media pictures educates them long before their parents and society can make clear linguistically/ verbally what is wrong and right. This phenomenon only concerns our generations that became great for the first time in history with these virtual pictures. The logical understanding that "what is in the box" is virtual like what is in the newspaper" comes late to all of us."Now, you are saying that one doesnt "choose" their sexuality. And I believe in most cases this is true. Because kids are vulnerable and shaped by their environment at an early age, exposure to "gay" culture or media or whatever could subvert the normal development of their sexuality before they have the mind processes to understand it. So yeah, I don't think its a choice, I think its a result of the environment at an early age, rather than being born with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tristen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 It has already become a complete fad... and an annoying one at that. These days it seems to be 'cool' to be promiscuous about your sexuality, yet most of the people pretending to be homosexual really don't actually seem to be. Well, the pure gay people tend to be more serious about it, but people who claim to be bi *mostly* just seem to say it to be open minded. If you ask the average teenager who claims to be bi what they've done with people of the same sex the answer will normally be 'oh I kissed another guy once' - so what? Big deal? I count myself as streight and I've kissed other guys. Shit like that doesn't make you bi or gay - long term attractions to a large proportion of the same sex, and (not applicable to virgins obviously) sexual activity with a member of the same sex do.Anyway excuse the rant... to be honest its not really an issue which concerns me as I just tend to find 'cool-bi' kids stupid and have done with it, but I do have a large number of properly homosexual friends who I know get very worked up about it. I guess its partly a theft of identity and also partly that people faking homosexuality tend to inadvertantly lead gay people on.Also for the record I think the entire bi thing is kinda stupid... Streight people always find themselves attracted to atleast one or two memeber of the same sex (and I challenge anyone out there to say otherwise) and I know that gay people occasionally find themselves attracted to the opposite sex - so really if you look at it like that the entire population are bi which is just stupid, so I think its better really to just be one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.