Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Now' date=' that is a harsh story, I know of one similiar, but I shan't divuldge the details...needles to say, these examples are not "homosexuality", but Paedophillia.so don't get them mixed up.I understand that you also don't like "outwardly gay" people, but prefer the more sedate kind, that tried to "fit in" with hetorosexual appearences, but , people DO NEED to be educated in accepting people, no matter what stances they have...you might say "ah ha, well accept my stance then", the only problem is, your stance errs onthe negative, and nothing good can come of negativeity (I sound like a hippy...sheesh!)...oops![/quote']It wasn't paedophilia, the rest of the kids were between 16 and 22.2nd point, sexuality doesn't have an outward appearance and one isn't necessary. What riles me is people who act like graham norton. Thats not sexuality, thats a fashion trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tristen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Hrm, first of all before I start writing this I want to put a big disclaimer, so you happy people won't be able to add 2 and 2 together and come up with 112. (Well you probably will anyway but what the hell.)Disclaimer: I really do not feel that I am in any way a homophobe. I have many close friends that are gay, I go to gay bars and chat with gay people and have a great time. Never once have I belittled or abused someone for their sexuality, infact I'd be one of the first people to be defending people right to choose their sexuality. So yeah don't play the whole homophobe card... BUT (And yes there has to be a but) I don't know how anyone can claim that it is natural... actually I wont use that words as people will start the whole cancer = natural too crap (great comparison by the way *rolleyes*) Ok lets just say that I don't see it as being how evolution designed us to work. As Stripey said, at this stage in evolution it is not possible for the same sex to breed, and thus is a dead genetic path - something that nothing in nature exhibits.As for that drivled shite about homosexuality being genetic that is so much balls. I've spend near on 20 mins trying to find it on the net, and asked my ex flatmate and two other people from his course who all just graduated with honours degress in biomedical science wether its actually possible... They say no. Yeah i know they aren't the definitive source on the subject, but they know more than you or I.So basically what it comes down to is that homosexuality is a human desire/emotion/whatever. So yeah, stripeys right, as an unnatural emotions it is in the same catagory as beastophilia etc although (hell red letters time again) homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody, so I do feel it should be allowed.And to be fair, I shall say that I don't agree with stripey on the point of...mostly because one of my friends was fucked by a man over 40 when he was only 15 and at a very vulnerable point in his life ... as this is the action of one messed up individual, not a culture in general. All the gay people I know are damm good people... infact most of them are a lot nicer and less hurtful than most hetrosexuals I know because they know what its like to be persecuted and be different.So, heres another question for you. Baestophilia: well, it doesn't hurt anyone, so should it be allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Mr Tristen, I was kinda trying to say that promoting increased tolerance of sexual deviance,, makes it that little bit easier for guys like that to prey on younger naive people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tristen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Mr Tristen' date=' I was kinda trying to say that promoting increased tolerance of sexual deviance,, makes it that little bit easier for guys like that to prey on younger naive people...[/quote']Yeah... I guess that much is true. heh, perhaps instead of arguing about the do's and son't of sexual promiscuity we should be finding ways to remove sick individuals like that from our society Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Funnily enough this story on the bbc site today talks about how genes relate to behaviour:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3783031.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 jesus, you don't get it do you ?...so, a man of 40 , trapping a kid of 15 "alone" is paedophillia, but it's "gay" if he's got an audience of people ABOVE the age of 15 ?...you are fucked up my friend.mostly because one of my friends was fucked by a man over 40 when he was only 15 and at a very vulnerable point in his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tristen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 "If as a child you see your mother cheat on your father, it comes easier for you. You copy the behaviour. "It is not predisposed by genes, it's because you think that is what a relationship is like or that you can get away with it." From the link above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 JESUS...you lot astound me...it's quite insulting to read these posts :... actually I wont use that words as people will start the whole cancer = natural too crap (great comparison by the way *rolleyes*)ROLLS FUCKING EYES ?...it is natural, it's just you don't agree with it..."no babies = not natural" that's so simplistic, it's laughable.here's the point :you are either homophobic or not.you can't "get on with gay people" but stillthink they are abhorent / unnatural.it's insulting, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 gay flies, read all about it :http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992803 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 one interesting development over the last 30 years, is the use of the Pill , apparently more women are using the pill, and the oestrogen contained in their Pee, being flushed into our rivers, is actually effecting the gender of fish, this stuff also gets put into our drinking water, so you never know, more females (through reproduction, due to the bias of female hormones), or, more men with "feminine traits"...makes you think ...well, perhaps not all of you, as it's too much to "think about", lets just keep it in the dark, and be happy with our sheltered, simple lives. (our dads told us to follow). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 JESUS...you lot astound me...it's quite insulting to read these posts :ROLLS FUCKING EYES ?...it is natural' date=' it's just you don't agree with it..."no babie = not natural" that's so simplistic, it's laughable.here's the point :you arte either homophobic or not.you can't "get on with gay people" but stillthink they are abhorent / unnatural.it's insulting, that's all.[/quote']Who are you trying to impress here? I get on fine with gay people, I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors. I don't tolerate camp graham norton clones, the same way as I don't tolerate thick people or bams or arseholes, I just ignore em. I am not a homophobe and I think whats insulting is that you are suggesting that I am, and using the crutch of political correctness to back up your point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Funnily enough this story on the bbc site today talks about how genes relate to behaviour:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3783031.stmYeah, I was reading that. Even the authors themselves are keen to stress they don't think there's evidence of an infidelity gene so the BBC News title is kind of misleading. They do summarise that "...genes alone did not determine whether somebody was likely to be unfaithful - much was down to social factors. "I'd be very interested in reading the original publication, Spector himself is more known for his work in bone biology than psychology though, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I am trying to impress no one, why should I ? that's your patriarchial male macho orientated style ? nes pas ?!as for "not being homophobic", I think you are, because of your already said points on thinking that children should be "protected from them"...Fair dues, you like gay people, that's cool, so do I , but , i have the idea that gay people should be seen , and should be alowed to express themselves as they see fit, and NOT have some guy tell them its wrong.If anything, I think drunken louts who kick the shit pout of people every friday night should be kept indoors ...but, we're never going to agree, so lets drop it.I'm right, you're right, we're all right, that's what makes the world go round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 just to add, I believe that "gay people" have both kinds of stimuli, nature AND nurture.like most kids don't turn out to be violent murderers (after watching too manyA-teams).but, like I said a while back, who care if kids turn gay, because they see a gay couple covorting, its WHY SHOULD YOU DISAPROVE OF THE KID TURNING GAY that's the real issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I am trying to impress no one' date=' why should I ? that's your patriarchial male macho orientated style ? nes pas ?!.[/quote']Cut it out mate, you are trying to insuate that im tabloid reading beer drinking football watching homophone, because of my views, and I deeply resent that. It's not a competition to see who can be the most politically correct. Anyway, I've only just got back here and I'm not about to get into any argument, so I'm not posting to this thread again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tristen Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 here's the point :you are either homophobic or not.you can't "get on with gay people" but stillthink they are abhorent / unnatural.it's insulting' date=' that's all.[/quote']Trust me dude, i feel just as insulted. I don't see how with all the other things you are arguing that you can group people into homophobe/not homophobe catagories, and your casual attitude to protecting children just plain scares me...Tell you what though, I am on your side about the 'drunken louts'... They should all be locked up. Thats my view. But under your system, how can you claim that they don't have a right to expfress themselves as they see fit buy gay people do?Anyway as this seems to be coming to a close I shall make my closing argument and say that I didn;t get involved in this to say wether a gay parade or whatever it is is wrong or right. The only thing I objected too was people claiming homosexuality was natural and that exposing kids to it was the correct thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 BUT (And yes there has to be a but) I don't know how anyone can claim that it is natural... actually I wont use that words as people will start the whole cancer = natural too crap (great comparison by the way *rolleyes*) Ok lets just say that I don't see it as being how evolution designed us to work. As Stripey said' date=' at this stage in evolution it is not possible for the same sex to breed, and thus is a dead genetic path - something that [b']nothing in nature exhibits.I beg to differ - nature exhibits dead end genetic paths all the time, sterility through inbreeding for example. And humans aren't the only animal to display same-sex coupling.There is an argument that suggests homosexuality in a population is a way of controlling it's proliferation. Sexual urges and desires are natural, if they can be fulfilled in an non-reproductive way then you satisfy the natural urge without increasing the population. If it's unnatural, then why is it so prevelant in the animal kingdom, too?species..........................percent homosexual..percent bisexual..percent heterosexual silver gulls (females).....................10.........................11..........................79 black headed gulls (both sexes)......22.........................15..........................63 Japanese macaques (both sexes)....9..........................56..........................35 bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes)...0.........................100..........................0 galahs (both sexes).......................44........................11...........................44 source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35 Bonobo chimps seem to exhibit 'any port in a storm' mentality. Bless. EDIT - Sorry I'm so shit at making tables look good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metarie Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 ok, I read the first and last pages of this, because I'm lazy and couldn't be bothered reading the rest, so i'm guessing this has gone off topic a bit. All I want to say isa) swinging ryan hit the nail on the head on page one. I have no problem with gay men or lesbians. I have no problem with bi sexuals. What does annoy me are faux lesbians or faux bi-sexuals. I understand it can take time to find your sexual orientation, but when a girl kisses another girl and proclaims herself gay or whatever. It's immature and i just think it's a pathetic cry for attention and they just want to be talked about. b) A persons sexuality can be neither changed or taught, you are who you are. For this reason I don't believe teaching children about gay relationships is wrong. They should teach children to accept other peoples lifestyles but not put emphasis on one or the other. If you put a label of right or wrong on something like sex, it makes it hard for children to ask questions which leads to more problems. the only thing children should be taught more about, sex-wise, are the facts about contraception and peodaphilia and what they should do if they have any problems with abuse/harrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 I don't see how with all the other things you are arguing that you can group people into homophobe/not homophobe catagories' date=' and your casual attitude to protecting children just plain scares me...[/quote']Oh Jesus. Protecting children from what? ... Seriously, what exactly is endangering our children? What is going to happen to them?This thread has really surprised and depressed me. It's like reading an interview with the Surrey Conservative Association. We've had them all -I don't mind them as long as they don't do it in public...Some of my friends are gay, but...Old men molesting young boys, cos that's what gays do, isn't it?...Kids shouldn't see what these people do, or they'll turn gay too...It's just not natural...But maybe we shouldn't allow Graham Norton on TV. I mean, what he does in his own time is fine with me, but before we know it all our kids will be wearing green spangly suits, telling rude jokes, and talking in that awful 'oirish' way that he does. There's just no need for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cynic Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Well said that man!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Even if the notion that Homosexuality is unnatural is in some "scientific" way correct, why does it matter? In a society that changes and develops so rapidly, why does everything have to be perfectly natural? In ancient Greece, Homosexuality was the norm, Men would have sex with woman to reproduce and have sex with other men purely for pleasure.I think Homosexuality is perfectly natural and acceptable, why shouldn't it be?What I find completely unacceptable is fashionable Sexuality and excessive over promotion of one's sexuality. I know a good few gay and Bisexual people through social circle's, unfortunately for the gay community, for every 5 or so completely nice, normal behaving friendly gay guy's/girls, there's one complete clown, who's only intent in life is to promote the fact that they are so sexually liberated and are generally very loud and play up to the role of the gay guy. They also seem to think it's acceptable to kiss and grope my girlfriend because "they're gay and it's just a bit of fun", when queried if it would be just a bit of fun if I kissed their boyfriend, you get some nonsense from them about being Homophobic. It is this new trend of fake sexual liberation and pseudo-sexuality that is completely undermining the fight that genuine Gay/Bi people have had to be accepted in society. This new fashionable Bisexuality thing is incredibly offensive to genuine Bisexual people who do actually exist. I don't believe that everyone is Bisexual, Bisexuality is a perfectly valid (albiet confusing) sexuality, It is people equally attracted physically and emotionally to members of both sexes, it is however tough for people to admit their Bisexuality without being labelled as "trying to be fashionable" which is patronising and degrading to what they have to live with. As for people who completely undermine that struggle of Bisexual people by claiming to be Bisexual after kissing or having sex with a member of the same sex once or twice, they can fuck right off.As for the whole Gay Pride thing, I don't particularly agree with it. I think Sexuality, as tough and important as it can be, is on the whole a completely trivial subject which does not merit this carnival atmosphere to celebrate it. I agree with the aspect of bringing together people who have had to struggle in the past and want to feel a sense of community, but I think it does more to promote segregation between the straight and gay community than unify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 No' date=' I think it is a mistake to encourage tolerance of homosexuality, mostly because one of my friends was fucked by a man over 40 when he was only 15 and at a very vulnerable point in his life. Said over 40 man regularly had 4 or 5 young boys like that in his flat every time I went there and was a total dodger and clearly preying on those kids and plying them with drugs. He also used to always try and engage me in chatting about computers and continually tried to get me to stay longer and longer. Some of my parents friends are gay/lesbian and they are over 50, and they behave very differently from the way homosexuality is portrayed in the media or acted out by "young people" of my generation. They don't mince around acting camp, they dont ever mention their sexuality, they just get on with their lives and don't appear outwardly gay.I think homosexuality has become something different thanks to the media, and frankly I think what it has become is wrong.[/quote']While I would not condone the actions of this man, it is quite wrong to condemn homosexuality only on this basis. Hey, how can tolerance, that is a greater understanding of the sexual orientation of others (those with no wish to exploit the vulnerabilities of the young), be wrong?You appear to have some difficulty with those who express their homosexuality, but see little wrong in those who express their heterosexuality. You see no contradiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 Who are you trying to impress here? I get on fine with gay people' date=' I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors. I don't tolerate camp graham norton clones, the same way as I don't tolerate thick people or bams or arseholes, I just ignore em. I am not a homophobe and I think whats insulting is that you are suggesting that I am, and using the crutch of political correctness to back up your point of view.[/quote']You will not tolerate it? I'm sorry, but why do you find such behaviour so threatening?And yes, you are indeed homophobic. Your postings demonstrate this quite clearly. And hey, being PC has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stripey Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 You will not tolerate it? I'm sorry' date=' but why do you find such behaviour so threatening?And yes, you are indeed homophobic. Your postings demonstrate this quite clearly. And hey, being PC has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[/quote']Look. I'm not homophobic. Im camp-o-phobic, ned-o-phobic, and ignorance-o-phobic. I dont find people who fit these categories threatening, I find them dull, uninteresting to talk to and tedious, end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted June 7, 2004 Report Share Posted June 7, 2004 one interesting development over the last 30 years' date=' is the use of the Pill , apparently more women are using the pill, and the oestrogen contained in their Pee, being flushed into our rivers, is actually effecting the gender of fish, this stuff also gets put into our drinking water, so you never know, more females (through reproduction, due to the bias of female hormones), or, more men with "feminine traits"...makes you think ...well, perhaps not all of you, as it's too much to "think about", lets just keep it in the dark, and be happy with our sheltered, simple lives. (our dads told us to follow).[/quote']I hope more women piss into rivers!!! I want more women! em, sorry ...back to the discussion 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.