|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:13 am
S-ism Homosexuality is not an innate characteristic. No one is born with it. When some social engineers say, "They can't help being that way," they have a gross misunderstanding of the situation. It is a myth which cannot be supported by the facts. Homosexuality results from a choice or a series of choices. The biological norm is heterosexuality. If a person becomes disenchanted with the opposite sex and goes elsewhere for sexual activity, it is a deliberate and conscious choice. There are many ways to twist and pervert the good way of sexuality. In each case where one of those deviant ways is practiced, it is a conscious choice to do so. The choice to enter into perversion is an unclean choice. It defiles the human body. In the case of homosexuality the practices are so unclean as to defy explanation for mixed audiences. The defilement creates a flood of disease of various kinds and flirts recklessly with death. Many homosexuals live their lives battling the diseases their unwise and wicked choices bring to them. Large numbers of them will go to an early grave as a result. Men should be masculine, and women should be feminine. When those roles begin to be distorted, another line of decency has been transgressed. Homosexuals are famous for cross-dressing and otherwise blurring the gender lines. Some homosexual men adopt a feminine mystique about themselves. When men abandon the normal masculine desires and roles, they search for other ways to express themselves. Without women they begin to act feminine. It's a mixed-up and confused scenario. It reeks with rebellion and disobedience. There is nothing about it that is right. This is how I feel. I am in no way trolling, I am simply getting my message out to GD. Homosexuality is not right. Discuss- Related thoughts. EDIT: I thought this post was good enough to add to the OP: `Hazy Job Now, if everyone were to accept them and their place in society what would disaster would befall our society? None. Nothing. Nada. There would be fewer hate crimes. Everyone has the right to live their lives without fear of attack - either physical or verbal. Why should Homosexuals have to live in fear? Wow, nada would happen? I guess you've just disproved the entire notion behind this thread. Only thing left to do now is go buy a few rainbow bumper stickers ... Oh, wait, that wasn't a fact, it was your opinion. Never mind. I love how you're misrepresenting this thread as part of some kind of campaign of fear. "Get out, fags! Fags go to hell! We'll ********' break your arms!" Come on. There's no such thing as a hate crime; that's a garbage phrase invented by PC crusaders. Using it is rhetoric, plain and simple. Nobody has the right to acceptance. It's not obligatory. If gays don't want to be denounced, they shouldn't be committing moral wrongs. I'm not going to change my views just because you think it's the "nice" thing to do. You know what it really is? The cowardly thing to do. In the face of you and so many others who assert my morals are inherently wrong and that I'm some kind of hateful bigot who can't accept anyone different from me, I am going to hold fast to my beliefs. There seems to be an attitude among your side of the argument that you don't need a reason to accept gays, that it's "just the right thing" to let them "be who they are". I don't accept this. It's faulty, circular logic. Every time you guys use it, I draw the parallel with a murderer, rapist, etc., and the point flies right over your heads. "You can't compare being gay with murder!" I'm not. I'm applying the same logic to another situation to illustrate why it doesn't work. The next retort is "Well it's different because being gay doesn't hurt anyone." Guess what? I disagree. That's the point of the thread. Now that we've tossed aside your evasive logic, we're back to square one.I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm sick of hearing buzzwords like "closed-minded" used to describe my belief system. It's hyperbole, meant to characterize my stance as some kind of fascist plot to control the world. Why can't I just be someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong and that it's just the right thing to do to speak out against it? Have you ever seen me or the OP imply that we have silly reasons such as "because they're different"? Does it actually seem like I -want- people to be unhappy? I think it's a bit ironic what's happening in this thread. A lot of people are going off of stereotypes and preconceptions about people who don't approve of homosexuality. They come in here angry, hoping for a fight with some stupid redneck/fundamentalist Christian. When the OP and I present ourselves maturely, they just get angrier, because for a lot of them, believing that everyone on the other side of the argument is the same kind of person makes it easier to avoid rationalization. They can just let their hatred of the stereotype fuel their argument. Sorry, but you won't pigeonhole me so easily. The last few paragraphs have been more of a general statement than a retort to you, Job, but I digress.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:43 am
Of course homosexuality is a choice. That's why my uncle cursed it everyday and desperately wished he could be straight. Oh wait, that was his choice. rolleyes
Who cares if it is or isn't a choice? Homosexuality has been in human culture for thousands of years. *cough*GreeksandRomans*coughs* Even if it is a choice, so ******** what? Let people do whatever makes them happy. As long as their choices don't affect my life, I don't give a damn. I'm polyamorous, which S-ism would probably find to be the ultimate perversion. It's the way I am, what I naturally adhered to without outside influence, and what makes me happy. I have no idea if I was "born" polyamorous or if it truly is a choice. On some level, it is my choice, and I have never wasted time thinking about if I was born or decided to be good or bad. I am me. Homosexuals are gay. If they're happy, why even bother caring? I will never understand what could possibly compel someone to believe that people must live a specific way of life in order to be happy and "fit into society". When humans find a way to see from multiple points of view, maybe I'll listen to what these people have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:42 pm
Faith Burns Of course homosexuality is a choice. That's why my uncle cursed it everyday and desperately wished he could be straight. Oh wait, that was his choice. rolleyes Who cares if it is or isn't a choice? Homosexuality has been in human culture for thousands of years. *cough*GreeksandRomans*coughs* Even if it is a choice, so ******** what? Let people do whatever makes them happy. As long as their choices don't affect my life, I don't give a damn. I'm polyamorous, which S-ism would probably find to be the ultimate perversion. It's the way I am, what I naturally adhered to without outside influence, and what makes me happy. I have no idea if I was "born" polyamorous or if it truly is a choice. On some level, it is my choice, and I have never wasted time thinking about if I was born or decided to be good or bad. I am me. Homosexuals are gay. If they're happy, why even bother caring? I will never understand what could possibly compel someone to believe that people must live a specific way of life in order to be happy and "fit into society". When humans find a way to see from multiple points of view, maybe I'll listen to what these people have to say. Full-Heartedly seconded. (Though I don't know what polyamorous is, and my spell check doesn't either.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:46 pm
Polyamorous is the adjective form of polyamory, which means to love multiple people. See polyamory on Wikipedia: link and I also recommend reading this thread if you're interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:05 am
S-ism and `Hazy seem to be mature and logical, pretty logical about the whole subject. Notice the keyword here being seem. They seem to be mature about it. They seem to be knowledgeable. They seem to have a point.
Who are they to say how a man and a woman should act? What is "masculine"? Is it to act tough? To not cry? Should they be "manly"? If so, then, by all means have them define the term "manly".
They deny being religious fanatics and couple of bigots, but they're acting like judges, and using words no objective observer would use, such as "morals". A man acting femenine is rebellious and disobedient? To what? To whom? What law are they breaking? What population are they offending?
I find flamboyance annoying. Is this enough reason for me not to accept a homosexual? Not really. I would find a flamboyant person, whether man or woman, straight or gay, annoying. This is my right as a person to find someone annoying. This does not mean I get to insult, demean and ridicule them.
I find it funny that while they try to look at it logically, and talk about circular logic, I have yet to see a base for their so-called logic. I can't see it. It's just their opinion, and as such, have no impact on anyone. I don't understand why people would get mad with those two, seeing as they make as much sense as the rest of the people, for or against homosexuality. There is no objectivity here, no fact. Just opinions.
I also find it funny how they say hate crimes don't exist, how homosexuals can be compared to murderers, and how someone being gay can hurt someone. I find a lot things funny here, actually, like how he calls it his "belief system", which is basically ignorance, diguised as "oh, please, don't hate me because I hate homosexuals", or "Don't think I'm wrong because I think homosexuality is wrong". Guess what? The door opens both ways. You can think it right to denounce homosexuality, others can think it right to defend it, and others, like me, can have the right to not care about it, and let others drown in their senseless arguments.
In fact, I don't even care about the whole "who is right/wrong" bullshit being spouted in those posts. All I care about is that they're shitting all over the word "logic". Logic is used on facts, things that have value of truth. When someone says "I believe/I think", logic is immediately thrown out the window, because the only fact there is that you have an opinion, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:10 am
Lord Vyce S-ism and `Hazy seem to be mature and logical, pretty logical about the whole subject. Notice the keyword here being seem. They seem to be mature about it. They seem to be knowledgeable. They seem to have a point.
Who are they to say how a man and a woman should act? What is "masculine"? Is it to act tough? To not cry? Should they be "manly"? If so, then, by all means have them define the term "manly".
They deny being religious fanatics and couple of bigots, but they're acting like judges, and using words no objective observer would use, such as "morals". A man acting femenine is rebellious and disobedient? To what? To whom? What law are they breaking? What population are they offending?
I find flamboyance annoying. Is this enough reason for me not to accept a homosexual? Not really. I would find a flamboyant person, whether man or woman, straight or gay, annoying. This is my right as a person to find someone annoying. This does not mean I get to insult, demean and ridicule them.
I find it funny that while they try to look at it logically, and talk about circular logic, I have yet to see a base for their so-called logic. I can't see it. It's just their opinion, and as such, have no impact on anyone. I don't understand why people would get mad with those two, seeing as they make as much sense as the rest of the people, for or against homosexuality. There is no objectivity here, no fact. Just opinions.
I also find it funny how they say hate crimes don't exist, how homosexuals can be compared to murderers, and how someone being gay can hurt someone. I find a lot things funny here, actually, like how he calls it his "belief system", which is basically ignorance, diguised as "oh, please, don't hate me because I hate homosexuals", or "Don't think I'm wrong because I think homosexuality is wrong". Guess what? The door opens both ways. You can think it right to denounce homosexuality, others can think it right to defend it, and others, like me, can have the right to not care about it, and let others drown in their senseless arguments.
In fact, I don't even care about the whole "who is right/wrong" bullshit being spouted in those posts. All I care about is that they're shitting all over the word "logic". Logic is used on facts, things that have value of truth. When someone says "I believe/I think", logic is immediately thrown out the window, because the only fact there is that you have an opinion, nothing more.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
(And I tried.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:39 am
Lord Vyce S-ism and `Hazy seem to be mature and logical, pretty logical about the whole subject. Notice the keyword here being seem. They seem to be mature about it. They seem to be knowledgeable. They seem to have a point.
Who are they to say how a man and a woman should act? What is "masculine"? Is it to act tough? To not cry? Should they be "manly"? If so, then, by all means have them define the term "manly".
They deny being religious fanatics and couple of bigots, but they're acting like judges, and using words no objective observer would use, such as "morals". A man acting femenine is rebellious and disobedient? To what? To whom? What law are they breaking? What population are they offending?
I find flamboyance annoying. Is this enough reason for me not to accept a homosexual? Not really. I would find a flamboyant person, whether man or woman, straight or gay, annoying. This is my right as a person to find someone annoying. This does not mean I get to insult, demean and ridicule them.
I find it funny that while they try to look at it logically, and talk about circular logic, I have yet to see a base for their so-called logic. I can't see it. It's just their opinion, and as such, have no impact on anyone. I don't understand why people would get mad with those two, seeing as they make as much sense as the rest of the people, for or against homosexuality. There is no objectivity here, no fact. Just opinions.
I also find it funny how they say hate crimes don't exist, how homosexuals can be compared to murderers, and how someone being gay can hurt someone. I find a lot things funny here, actually, like how he calls it his "belief system", which is basically ignorance, diguised as "oh, please, don't hate me because I hate homosexuals", or "Don't think I'm wrong because I think homosexuality is wrong". Guess what? The door opens both ways. You can think it right to denounce homosexuality, others can think it right to defend it, and others, like me, can have the right to not care about it, and let others drown in their senseless arguments.
In fact, I don't even care about the whole "who is right/wrong" bullshit being spouted in those posts. All I care about is that they're shitting all over the word "logic". Logic is used on facts, things that have value of truth. When someone says "I believe/I think", logic is immediately thrown out the window, because the only fact there is that you have an opinion, nothing more. Likewhoa. You should totally go to the original thread*where I got his bit of dialogue*, and say that. All the above, is probably why I couldn't find it in me, to justify trying to argue with 'em. Edit: for anyone curious, this was my post on the subject. sound like cities falling This entire thread is perpetuated by the following statements;
"You're wrong." and "No, you are."
These are opinions. No opinion can be more correct or less correct than another opinion. It doesnt matter how many people share this opinion. It is still such.
We can not logically call one opinion or the other "wrong" as that is what they are. Opinions. And "wrong" is also an opinion. It is my opinion that kicking little children is fun. My mother begs to differ. But that is her opinon and her set of morals.
Therefore, no matter what our opinions, we cannot logically call someone elses opinon "wrong" when maybe we are wrong to them. This is conflicting opinions and morals and leads to 5873409867409367435 pages of "You're wrong." "No, you are."
End of story. There is truth in those words. Everyone has a stance, and a view on life. I respect those that stick to theirs, no matter what they may be. To me, those that would shape their very beings, just to appease a crowd, is a spineless coward that doesn't deserve to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:25 am
I'd post it, but seeing the way he posts, which is vague and cryptic at best, he'd probably either wouldn't care or would find a way to flip the whole argument against me, and I'm not in the mood to have some ignorant idiot (Talking about 'Hazy here) tell me something I already know and change a few words just to make me seem wrong. I'll let them do whatever they want, since I don't care enough about them and their opinion to actually ctrl-c, ctrl-v my post there. That, and I feel lazy. I'd rather draw while I lurk Gaia and 4chan. They've got some big breast thread going on /b/, and I'm a sucker for those. Today's also a good day visit /d/. Imma go lurk.
EDIT: /s/ is good as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:17 pm
What is "normal"?
"Normal" is human for "a set of actions and behaviors and visual sensations that make us feel comfortable."
People take words for granted; they think that words mean ONE thing; the definition in the dictionary and that people use those words to mean the definition.
You'll notice, though, that this is completely false.
What does this have to do with "anti gay first post bigotry"?
It is the fact that the entire argument is based on ONE PERSON'S definition of what "normal" is. It's a definition based on a sheltered life where heterosexuality is seen as "normal" and "given" (heteronormativity, is the popular term for this) and where thinking of someone as gay is not seen as just "another" behavior, but a "weird and deviant" behavior.
From the point of view of a polygamist tribe from New Guinea, "normal" involves taking all girls of 8 and taking them into the forests to learn how to sexually pleasure the knowledgable men, while the boys are taken later by the men and taught the same. After this, the boys are wed to multiple girls way younger than them who are still considered "virgins" because no males except for designated "holy" teachers have been able to have sex with them.
If they took one look at Western culture, they would scratch their heads and scream "BARBARITY!"
You see, "normal" is quite problematic, indeed.
So, where does this leave us?
Humans have the innate ability to live in diverse areas, have diverse ideas about what life is supposed to mean, have diverse beliefs in dieties, have diverse skin, eye, and facial features, so why not homosexuality?
We have diversity in what we find attractive within heterosexuality (just because you like women doesn't mean you like ALL women, and the same goes for if you like men), so why shouldn't gender/sex be allowed to play into the equation?
And we have an even more wide variety of sexualities than simply heterosexuality and homosexuality. Look at bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, etc.
Sorry, bigoted closedminded gay-phobics, but "normal" just got a whole lot more complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:16 am
I agree Oni. To quote myself: Faith Burns To be honest, I cannot adhere to the views people have on homosexuality on almost all sides. Sexuality, to me, has always been something that, when love is involved, leans towards pansexuality, which means to love people based on the specific relationship with them as opposed to whether they are male or female. Most relationships are not determined solely by orientation, as humans are social animals and find sexuality amongst the opposite sex, same sex, and groups of individuals. Time and time again, I see the errors in humanity's classification system, and because sentient beings most often do not fall into specific categories, separating marriages based on the sexual organ(s) of the partner(s) is ludicrous, especially when considering that orientation is not that black and white to begin with. I'm sick of debates about whether sexuality is a choice, genetic, or whatever. Who cares? Why we are so obsessed with knowing? Everyone's a little gay in some ways, so why have we as a culture developed this scale to grade people based on where their thoughts, eyes, and sexual body parts are? It cannot simply be defined as "gay" or "straight", and the fact that our society attempts to do so shows me that we as a species still have a long way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
