I hear people say this all the time. But is there?
To me, there is something wrong with a person who is gay. They have something wrong with their heads, because of the simple fact that being attracted to the same sex does not promote procreation. I think it's a psychological disease.
Discuss.

Obviously being gay is disgusting, unhealthy, unnatural, and against the law of God.

the only disgusting thing about being gay is when my boyfriend suggests that I eat him.....

ewww.... the after taste...

I think homosexuality is a type of deformity. I do not believe it natural and I think there were a combination of factors that played in causing that person to become homosexual.

I don't buy the liberal "homosexual is completely natural" "BE PROUD" "there are straight babys and there are gay babys" crap. That is just feel-good bullshit.

I think each homosexual is the way they are because of a combination of factors unique to that person. Some people may be homosexual because of a hormonal imbalance and the effect of some early childhood experiences. Some people may be homosexual strictly based on events in their formative years. Others could be homosexual strictly because of some genetic abnormality.

Just because they are wrong in that sense, does not mean they do not belong. If they believe the best thing for them is dick, then it's fine if it makes them happy. There really should not be any right or wrong as far as sexuality goes. I think imposing any kind barrier based on what that person finds naturally sexually attractive (except fucking pedos, of course) is a recipe for lots of trouble. Kind of like how forcing priests to go celibate makes them diddle little kids.

if a diseased person isnt harming me, then i dont worry about them

Obviously a disease, and somewhat harmless at that. It shouldnt be treated with shame, no disease is cured that way.

But until we find a cure, or what causes it, you really can't stop them from indulging themselves. They have as much a right to sexual pleasure as straight people. But, yea, not really something that should be celebrated.

The idea that sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. People have sex all the time just because they want to get off. There is something wrong with gays, but not on a procreation basis, but on the basis that they only have sex with other gays. For me it's find a hole and put it in, you always get the same affect. If for some reason they can't get off on the opposing sex, now that's a problem. So yes their is something wrong with gays, they are inept.

There isn't anything wrong with it and I am yet to hear an argument as to why. It's no more "wrong" than being left-handed, autistic, or a chronically depressed person. Is it a minority of people? Yes, but that is arbitrary. Does it not lead to procreation? No, but again that is arbitrary. For people that say it's a choice, I behoove you to remember when you decided to like blondes over brunettes, or skinny girls over fat ones, or the opposite sex over your own sex. But even this is a moot point, whether it's a choice or not, because there is the underlying premise that it is inherently wrong, but that if they don't choose it, then they can't be "blamed" for it - this premise I wholeheartedly disagree with. Really, what is wrong with 2 girls having sex or 2 men having sex? It brings pleasure, not pain. It brings happiness, not suffering. On the other hand, society isolating/alienating people because of their sexuality does bring suffering.

P.S. save your time if you're about to reply with "it's wrong because it's unnatural" because you will get a swift reply leading you to a wikipedia article explaining the naturalistic fallacy.

Being gay is someone's personal business. Get out of it.

Being gay is someone's personal business. Get out of it.

Having sex with my horny dog is my own personal business. Get out of it.

I think there is far more evil in morally judging others than consensual sex of any sort.

Mind your own fucking business and leave people alone as long as they're not hurting other people. Not everyone has to be the same as you to be good. I'd take a fudge-packing, dress wearing circus freak over some pseudo-christian moralist any day.

And procreation? So your saying your against birth control and masturbation as well. Remember that next time you pull your pud, you deviation of normalcy. Great way to live. Bravo.

Science has traced an area in the brain to sexual orientation. I forget what it is. I'm too lazy/drunk to look it up right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus

But again. Its a moot point. The real issue is people leaving other people alone to live there lives. The nature, nurture debate is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus

But again. Its a moot point. The real issue is people leaving other people alone to live there lives. The nature, nurture debate is irrelevant

I completely agree the nature/nurture debate is a moot point, but I think this thread is more about the morality of homosexuality rather than what should be allowed in society/made illegal by the gov't. Of course, these things tend to often be connected, but aren't inherently so.

i think people are gay for different reasons. like my friend is gay and he told me he loves to be the dominated one meaning fucked in the ass

People who hate gays just have a severe case of tribalism.

They don't hurt anyone, they don't do anything wrong, who the fuck cares then?

lolfag

Please move yourself and your content-less posts to HB or SG with all the other kidiots.

^ fag alert

^ fag alert

You too, back to HB or /b where you belong new member. This is why registration should be closed.

You joined more than four years ago and you have 205 page visits. I joined a couple days ago and I have 120. How about you go to 4chan? A homosexual like yourself would have a much easier time on a forum that is anonymous.

Isn't the current theory that it's caused by hormonal imbalances in the womb? Since statistics show that you're far more likely to be gay if you have an older brother, regardless of whether you grew up with him.

But like has been said, it doesn't matter. Something being 'unnatural' isn't a valid reason to prohibit it.

On the other hand, I can't think of a basis to say that the indignation someone feels at two men having sex is any more valid than what people feel when someone kills a cute little animal for no reason.

On the other hand, I can't think of a basis to say that the indignation someone feels at two men having sex is any more valid than what people feel when someone kills a cute little animal for no reason.

There is no supernatural (metaphysical) justification for how we should feel about things. Appeal to some abstract moral law to justify prejudice and contempt is little more than dogmatic. if we are to be ethical humans in any regard, humans need to focus on empathy alone to determine right and wrong. Harm is a legitimate basis for care, so to speak. In this regard the empathy experienced when we witness the torture of or harm to another sentient creature is sufficient to justify prejudice and reaction. We need not appeal to a greater reasoning to legitimize our feelings, we can simply relate. We can all relate to harm, and normally (hopefully) have some sense of right and wrong when others are being harmed, even if this is not a concrete conclusion at the end of a syllogism. Empathy is not a law, but, equivocally, is a justification to care, for those who need one. That is, lack of metaphysics does not mean humanity is extinguished, only that good and evil take on less concrete forms.

There is a difference between real harm, and "moral" harm, which appeals to some explanation or authority for its legitimacy. Homosexuality is condemned in principle alone, by assholes that put too much stock in principles, and their own egos. Its no longer what is harmful for these people, but simply what is different. That is the real evil - assuming a world of individuals should fit some egocentric mold - with penalty of harm to those who dont.

An animal suffering needlessly is a blatant evil, as far as I'm concerned. There is a victim, clearly, and in that regard elicits a much stronger moral reaction than some abstract judgments about other peoples consensual sex lives.

Being gay is someone's personal business. Get out of it.

That's the way I see it, though I hope gay pride and stuff can come to an end soon, just like straightness doesn't need to be flaunted, neither does gay pride. That being said Mardi gras can be a good laugh though.

While you could argue that it's a dysfunction, it is undeniably natural. There is even evidence that it has a biological, altruistic advantage, in that it seems to become more frequent in overcrowded populations (shown in rat studies).

If you have a particular qualm with gay culture, or gay political/social issues, feel free to discuss them. If you simply don't like homosexual sex, then don't have it, and keep it to yourself.

/Thread.

Their is something wrong, these people have an unfortunate biological or psychological problem which cannot be corrected. Nonetheless since it is not harmful nothing needs to be done, unlike pedophilia.

The way i see it... with overpopulation, and people evolving, gay is gonna be the new hetero.

I hope so at least... amongst men


less competition

The way i see it... with overpopulation, and people evolving, gay is gonna be the new hetero.

I hope so at least... amongst men


less competition

Yeah, that would be pretty awesome. Too bad it will take many, many generations. :(

Maybe when we're 70 we'll get to fuck hot young girls because all of the guys their age will be queer.

I'm sure this subject has been exhausted... but being homosexual is as natural as rain. It has always existed in every civilization. The only reason any part of gay culture may be considered "destructive" is that society has made these people feel like they are doing something wrong; an abomination to God. And yes, homosexuality is actually good for modern society -- I really don't care to live in a world with 9 billion humans when I'm 61.

I'm sure this subject has been exhausted... but being homosexual is as natural as rain. It has always existed in every civilization. The only reason any part of gay culture may be considered "destructive" is that society has made these people feel like they are doing something wrong; an abomination to God. And yes, homosexuality is actually good for modern society -- I really don't care to live in a world with 9 billion humans when I'm 61.

^^^THAT. In Spartan society, homosexuality was MANDATORY among both men and women. Homosexuality has been recorded in biblical times, Greece, Rome, etc etc.

Alexander The Great, Da Vinci, Caligula, Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, John Cage, Liberaci, King Edward II, Leonard Bernstein, Hadrian, Frida Khalo, Ian McKellan, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Judy Garland, and probably a million other important people in history and culture are/were gay or bisexual.

^^^THAT. In Spartan society, homosexuality was MANDATORY among both men and women. Homosexuality has been recorded in biblical times, Greece, Rome, etc etc.

Alexander The Great, Da Vinci, Caligula, Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, John Cage, Liberaci, King Edward II, Leonard Bernstein, Hadrian, Frida Khalo, Ian McKellan, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Judy Garland, and probably a million other important people in history and culture are/were gay or bisexual.

They were also down with pedophilia. It's funny how times and cultures change. I blame the Puritans, and by extension, the British.

EDIT: Not that I like pedophilia or homosexuality.

:slowly backs out of room:

It's no more "wrong" than being left-handed, autistic, or a chronically depressed person.

2 out of the 3 are not desirable and are considered "not natural", "not healthy",
"wrong".

Now the trick is convincing populations in less developped nations to adopt homosexuality to slow down population growth...

Opinion: Being gay is a perversion of our design.

Just as i believe illicit sex is, and any other misuse of our bodies i.e. eating addiction, drug abuse, not utilizing our intelligence and consciousness.

It is my observation that gay people are obsessed with the material world and sense gratification far more so than heterosexual people in particular gay males.

So is this intrinsic to homosexuality? Empirically speaking no, because co-relation does not mean causation.

The virtue of homosexuality depends on context like anything else i.e. homosexuals are seen as being people into casual sex, which puts them in a negative light, but this has more to do with the enculturation process.

From a spiritual ontology sexuality is very close to being the nemesis of spirituality and its obvious heterosexuality has been a derivative of immorality/amorality; im just not sure i can make the judgment that a homosexual is any worse.

I have no problem at all with gays, so long as they don't go grabbing my ass.

Opinion: Being gay is a perversion of our design.

Just as i believe illicit sex is, and any other misuse of our bodies i.e. eating addiction, drug abuse, not utilizing our intelligence and consciousness.

It is my observation that gay people are obsessed with the material world and sense gratification far more so than heterosexual people in particular gay males.

So is this intrinsic to homosexuality? Empirically speaking no, because co-relation does not mean causation.

The virtue of homosexuality depends on context like anything else i.e. homosexuals are seen as being people into casual sex, which puts them in a negative light, but this has more to do with the enculturation process.

From a spiritual ontology sexuality is very close to being the nemesis of spirituality and its obvious heterosexuality has been a derivative of immorality/amorality; im just not sure i can make the judgment that a homosexual is any worse.

:cool:

Opinion: Being gay is a perversion of our design.

Just as i believe illicit sex is, and any other misuse of our bodies i.e. eating addiction, drug abuse, not utilizing our intelligence and consciousness.

It is my observation that gay people are obsessed with the material world and sense gratification far more so than heterosexual people in particular gay males.

So is this intrinsic to homosexuality? Empirically speaking no, because co-relation does not mean causation.

The virtue of homosexuality depends on context like anything else i.e. homosexuals are seen as being people into casual sex, which puts them in a negative light, but this has more to do with the enculturation process.

From a spiritual ontology sexuality is very close to being the nemesis of spirituality and its obvious heterosexuality has been a derivative of immorality/amorality; im just not sure i can make the judgment that a homosexual is any worse.

Protip: When you mix baseless, presumably religion-based judgements with personal morality, you get retarded opinions.

Everyone needs to just mind their own fucking business.

You want to screw a man, smoke some weed, cut off your dick with a razor, whatever. Go ahead, just leave me alone.

This is my opinion :

Homosexuality is just a preferred sexual preference. It's no different than someone who likes sadomasochism, bondage etc, etc. It's just what gets you off. I don't have a problem with it.

I'm not gay, and I'm not into it - but then again, I'm not into bondage either. Does that mean I don't like people who are into it? Certainly not. To each his own. Being gay means you're turned on by the same sex. That's no different than someone who is turned on by blondes/brunettes etc, etc.

Besides, being gay is just your sexual preference - not your LIFE STYLE. I hate homosexuals who treat it as they're something different and unique. No. You just get off in a different way. You're in no way shape or form more/less of a person.


My 2 cents.

Besides, being gay is just your sexual preference - not your LIFE STYLE. I hate homosexuals who treat it as they're something different and unique. No. You just get off in a different way.

Yep. Man, sex is such a crazy, diverse thing. You'd think there'd be a huge field of study dedicated to it, given all of the other random shit scientists have devoted their lives to. Like, in the same way that some people (me) are attracted to big tits and asses, and others like petite girls, it makes you wonder if there's a similar mechanism that influences people to be homosexual.

Then again, who cares?

Yep. Man, sex is such a crazy, diverse thing. You'd think there'd be a huge field of study dedicated to it, given all of the other random shit scientists have devoted their lives to. Like, in the same way that some people (me) are attracted to big tits and asses, and others like petite girls, it makes you wonder if there's a similar mechanism that influences people to be homosexual.

Then again, who cares?

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/imagesmap-20of-20human-20sexuality.jpg

I have that printed out on my wall

Then again, who cares?

But living and let live isn't good enough for some people.

They have to (Instead of doing something productive) go out and campaign and speak out against the evil, horrible, morally bankrupt Homosexuals who contribute nothing to society due to not having children (And are all pedophiles).

But living and let live isn't good enough for some people.

They have to (Instead of doing something productive) go out and campaign and speak out against the evil, horrible, morally bankrupt Homosexuals who contribute nothing to society due to not having children (And are all pedophiles).

That's what happens when you're indoctrinated at birth into a cult that promotes ignorance and bigotry.

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/imagesmap-20of-20human-20sexuality.jpg

I have that printed out on my wall

As a lover of geography and maps, let me say that is quite awesome.

There is a difference between real harm, and "moral" harm, which appeals to some explanation or authority for its legitimacy. Homosexuality is condemned in principle alone, by assholes that put too much stock in principles, and their own egos. Its no longer what is harmful for these people, but simply what is different.

While compassion is better for everyone as a whole, xenophobia is still a pretty natural human emotion. They're on pretty even footing.

Practically, society would definitely be a better place with suppressed intolerance all around. Morally, even if they understand you perfectly I don't think you'll have much luck changing anyone's mind, since what it all boils down to is how you feel.

Obviously a disease, and somewhat harmless at that. It shouldnt be treated with shame, no disease is cured that way.

But until we find a cure, or what causes it, you really can't stop them from indulging themselves. They have as much a right to sexual pleasure as straight people. But, yea, not really something that should be celebrated.

Shut the fuck up.

sorry, but I think that is an extremely insensitive thing to say.


There is no conclusive scientific proof that points to only nature or only nurture being the cause of homosexuality.
I think aLn is on the right track. If nature was to "blame", then there would be no "cure" for homosexuality. Though I don't think either of those words should be used in this context.

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/imagesmap-20of-20human-20sexuality.jpg

I have that printed out on my wall

Sex with Jesus. Lawl'd.

Everyone needs to just mind their own fucking business.

You want to screw a man, smoke some weed, cut off your dick with a razor, whatever. Go ahead, just leave me alone.

"nobody ever told her its the wrong way"

r.i.p brad

Someone pointed out to me that they though my opinions were based on religion; i do not follow a religion.

The main argument against homosexuality is this; homosexuality is unnatural- it de-sanctified the institution of marriage and what that stands for traditionally in and of itself; not how it manifests itself in people's relationship's (an imperfect manifestation) and it is sexually immoral/illicit.

Alot of people from secular culture dont pay any attention to these arguments; and i wouldnt phrase it that way but let me try and paraphrase it for the essense.

It all has to do with sex; the fundamental purpose is to pro-create and that process between two unified souls is something spiritually marvelous aswell as the result (new life)- anything else is taking sex out of context. This is the original and fundamental context of sex; that is fact. After that anything else is a social construction. Often a couple in the situation i mentioned previously may choose two have sex to further unify their souls, AS may a homosexual; here is were the plot thickens.

The fundamental and original context of sex if pro-creation and after that it has been placed in a context outside of the original context; leisure. It is debatable that sex outside the original context is spiritually illicit because it is mere sense gratification, when it is elevated above leisure through love- two romantically united souls elevate sex from a material act ( leisure) to a spiritual act; both are spiritual contexts so both are moral.

Of course homosexuals can only enjoy one of these spiritual contexts; that is fact- the ontology you choose is up to you.

Natural = http://www.outhousegraffiti.com/Crap1.jpg = Gross :mad:

Unnatural = http://www.buytaert.net/cache/images-chicago-2005-rockstar-700x700.jpg = Zing :D




Homosexuality in men may just be genetic suicide. A switch flipped in the genome before the kid is even born, intended to even things out population wise. Sort of like 4chan. Not sure it should be called a defect. More of a feature.

Other than that, I can't really think of any practical evolutionary reason for it. Maybe because women can be very bitchy and those woman-hating vibes make their way into the sperm?

The repulsion of straight people towards gay people may be caused culturally or instinctively. The only way to deduce that would observe how they're treated across all cultures, from the Amazon jungle to Viking Tribes to Western Cities. That would be interesting to know.

If you could observe that repulsion consistently across the board in every culture and ethnicity, you might be able to positively assume that there is indeed something something very fucked up about them, hence the psychological repulsion which has been programmed into people's brains. That is, if it is instinctive and not cultural.

If it were instinctive, then there is probably a good reason. Usually disgust/repulsion is triggered by..well..disgusting and repulsive things. Generally of a diseased or otherwise hazardous state.


On the cultural side of it, I don't view it as a serious problem. The general straight public does get riled up by it rather than stepping back and looking at it dispassionately. If gay sex truly is unhealthy and unnatural, then gays will probably only be a danger to themselves in the long run. They generally aren't violent. They also demonstrate suitable utility as pop singers and interior decorators(or in the case of women, loggers). All of which contribute constructively in some degree.

The repulsion of straight people towards gay people may be caused culturally or instinctively. The only way to deduce that would observe how they're treated across all cultures, from the Amazon jungle to Viking Tribes to Western Cities. That would be interesting to know.

If you could observe that repulsion consistently across the board in every culture and ethnicity, you might be able to positively assume that there is indeed something something very fucked up about them, hence the psychological repulsion which has been programmed into people's brains. That is, if it is instinctive and not cultural.

So literally every straight man and woman on earth would have to think that there is something repulsive about gays for your theory to work.

So literally every straight man and woman on earth would have to think that there is something repulsive about gays for your theory to work.

Well, I think what they mean is that people hating on gay people is indeed cultural, as obviously not every straight man and woman have a problem with Homosexuality.

Throughout history, in every culture, there have been an abundance of fags. Before the big three religions came along, gays got along as well as anybody else. Then Judaism, Christianity and Islam gave people a reason, taught them to dislike it (I'm sure there were other religions that disliked it, but none were as large or grew as fast as the those three).

So literally every straight man and woman on earth would have to think that there is something repulsive about gays for your theory to work.

No. Expecting every single last person to believe one thing or have the same instincts, or even be capable of making a judgement would be unrealistic. Some people's instinctive systems are flawed. Look at people who like to eat and play in their own shit, for example. It would also include gays themselves, who obviously aren't repulsed by it, and their views would be inherently biased. Unreliable scientific data.

Just a majority portion across several dramatically different settings. Especially isolated tribes/villages where mainstream culture might not have affected their views, as well as more 'first world' mainstream settings. I think smaller scale isolated settings would be a more reliable source of unbiased data though. You would get their views 'as is' based on locally gained wisdom, which was uncorrupted by say, the pressures of political correctness, which would be more prevalent in a western urban environment.

The whole idea of the information gathering would be to see if there are just a few cultural taboos, or if it is the majority of cultures. Which, if they were isolated from other cultures(especially christian/catholic influence), could likely suggest an evolutionary reason.

Natural = http://www.outhousegraffiti.com/Crap1.jpg = Gross :mad:

Unnatural = http://www.buytaert.net/cache/images-chicago-2005-rockstar-700x700.jpg = Zing :D




Homosexuality in men may just be genetic suicide. A switch flipped in the genome before the kid is even born, intended to even things out population wise. Sort of like 4chan. Not sure it should be called a defect. More of a feature.

Other than that, I can't really think of any practical evolutionary reason for it. Maybe because women can be very bitchy and those woman-hating vibes make their way into the sperm?

The repulsion of straight people towards gay people may be caused culturally or instinctively. The only way to deduce that would observe how they're treated across all cultures, from the Amazon jungle to Viking Tribes to Western Cities. That would be interesting to know.

If you could observe that repulsion consistently across the board in every culture and ethnicity, you might be able to positively assume that there is indeed something something very fucked up about them, hence the psychological repulsion which has been programmed into people's brains. That is, if it is instinctive and not cultural.

If it were instinctive, then there is probably a good reason. Usually disgust/repulsion is triggered by..well..disgusting and repulsive things. Generally of a diseased or otherwise hazardous state.


On the cultural side of it, I don't view it as a serious problem. The general straight public does get riled up by it rather than stepping back and looking at it dispassionately. If gay sex truly is unhealthy and unnatural, then gays will probably only be a danger to themselves in the long run. They generally aren't violent. They also demonstrate suitable utility as pop singers and interior decorators(or in the case of women, loggers). All of which contribute constructively in some degree.

Disliking gay people is not instinctive, retard.

Disliking gay people is not instinctive, retard.

Do you have any research to suggest this?

Do you have any research to suggest this?

Plenty. But since I'm not going to waste my time trying to inform yet another "I-jump-to-retarded-conclusions" genius, the easiest thing is to simply look at cultures who have embraced gayness, the ancient Greeks being the most prominent example. People raised in that culture didn't have a problem with gayness, just as people who are raised today in a diverse, non-bigoted environment don't have a problem with gayness.

As someone else pointed out, you're overgeneralizing by assuming that everyone dislikes gays/homosexuality. You also can't simply disregard the millions of people that don't have a problem with gays by labeling them as freaks of nature.

What you've done here is observed that the major religions of today and bigots are anti-gay, and then made a baseless assumption that people are innately against homosexuality. Of course, predictably, you're now going to ignore evidence that is against your wild-guess hypothesis, and you're going to continue making stupid posts.

If you saw a study that showed that infants are clearly repulsed by seeing homosexuals have sex, you might have a point. Until such a study is done, you're truly just making up bullshit. There's nothing wrong with thinking about things and forming hypotheses, but making unsubstantiated guesses based on surface observations is, frankly, the worst thing you can possibly do.

Plenty. But since I'm not going to waste my time trying to inform yet another "I-jump-to-retarded-conclusions" genius, the easiest thing is to simply look at cultures who have embraced gayness, the ancient Greeks being the most prominent example. People raised in that culture didn't have a problem with gayness, just as people who are raised today in a diverse, non-bigoted environment don't have a problem with gayness.

As someone else pointed out, you're overgeneralizing by assuming that everyone dislikes gays/homosexuality. You also can't simply disregard the millions of people that don't have a problem with gays by labeling them as freaks of nature.

What you've done here is observed that the major religions of today and bigots are anti-gay, and then made a baseless assumption that people are innately against homosexuality. Of course, predictably, you're now going to ignore evidence that is against your wild-guess hypothesis, and you're going to continue making stupid posts.

If you saw a study that showed that infants are clearly repulsed by seeing homosexuals have sex, you might have a point. Until such a study is done, you're truly just making up bullshit.



I have a theory Im putting out that suggests there could be an instinctive disgust, and a few ideas which would scientifically deduce whether it could be distinguished from imposed outside culture. If you weren't thinking up sick fantasies of showing gay porn to babies, you might have caught that.


Just because the Greeks accepted it into their culture, doesn't mean they didn't have to overcome a natural instinct to get to that point. Take airplanes or trains as an example. Most people who had never seen one would probably be freaked the fuck out to ride in one(or even be near one, for that matter).


Responding to your second paragraph; Could you disregard the millions of people that weren't put off by it? If there were billions that were, then yes. It is still theoretical at this point, but still. "Millions" could refer to as little as 0.03% of the total world population.

I have a theory Im putting out that suggests there could be an instinctive disgust, and a few ideas which would scientifically deduce whether it could be distinguished from imposed outside culture. If you weren't thinking up sick fantasies of showing gay porn to babies, you might have caught that.


Just because the Greeks accepted it into their culture, doesn't mean they didn't have to overcome a natural instinct to get to that point. Take airplanes or trains as an example. Most people who had never seen one would probably be freaked the fuck out to ride in one(or even be near one, for that matter).


Responding to your second paragraph; Could you disregard the millions of people that weren't put off by it? If there were billions that were, then yes. It is still theoretical at this point, but still. "Millions" could refer to as little as 0.03% of the total world population.

The surface observation you made (that many people dislike gays) could be explained by a number of more plausible factors. Could "nature" be one reason for it? Without a doubt. But there's no evidence for it. If you wanted evidence, you would likely have to do the experiement I suggested. There's nothing wrong with identifying a possible variable, but the fact that you gave the variable weight and significance without any evidence for it is alarming.

In other words, the possibility that we have an inherent dislike for gays has as much evidence for it as me saying "The color of the sky causes people to dislike gays."

The surface observation you made (that many people dislike gays) could be explained by a number of more plausible factors. Could "nature" be one reason for it? Without a doubt. But there's no evidence for it. If you wanted evidence, you would likely have to do the experiement I suggested. There's nothing wrong with identifying a possible variable, but the fact that you gave the variable weight and significance without any evidence for it is alarming.

In other words, the possibility that we have an inherent dislike for gays has as much evidence for it as me saying "The color of the sky causes people to dislike gays."

hmm..I don't know that infants would be reliable for that sort of experiment, as they might not comprehend what they are seeing. Developmental rates and non-concise communication add a lot of variables. But at that age you can definitely eliminate them being jaded by cultural views.

I give my ideas significance in a theoretical realm, yes, but Im often the first one to question evidence or a means to get it as well. The study I proposed would cost millions of dollars and take years. Hardly a feasible venture considering the other issues in the world that need researching.

If someone had made a claim like the color of sky influencing people's behavior in a specific way, I would ponder over it a moment to see if I could find a way to make it seem reasonable before I went off finding ways it wasn't. Then I might bring it up for discussion before I outright insulted them. I appreciate it when people do the same for me, as well.

Debate gets the mind thinking, but shit, we can go about it like gentlemen.

No. Expecting every single last person to believe one thing or have the same instincts, or even be capable of making a judgement would be unrealistic. Some people's instinctive systems are flawed. Look at people who like to eat and play in their own shit, for example. It would also include gays themselves, who obviously aren't repulsed by it, and their views would be inherently biased. Unreliable scientific data.

Just a majority portion across several dramatically different settings. Especially isolated tribes/villages where mainstream culture might not have affected their views, as well as more 'first world' mainstream settings. I think smaller scale isolated settings would be a more reliable source of unbiased data though. You would get their views 'as is' based on locally gained wisdom, which was uncorrupted by say, the pressures of political correctness, which would be more prevalent in a western urban environment.

The whole idea of the information gathering would be to see if there are just a few cultural taboos, or if it is the majority of cultures. Which, if they were isolated from other cultures(especially christian/catholic influence), could likely suggest an evolutionary reason.

So you agree that culture is just constructed by society and doesn't follow the laws of evolution, right?

hmm..I don't know that infants would be reliable for that sort of experiment, as they might not comprehend what they are seeing. Developmental rates and non-concise communication add a lot of variables. But at that age you can definitely eliminate them being jaded by cultural views.

Innateness doesn't depend on comprehension. Babies don't comprehend death but are repulsed by images of it; thus a repulsion towards death is "innate" because it's not rationalized. When people begin to have rational thoughts that's when they can rationalize anything to fit their idea of "innate", but evolutionary mechanisms work under the assumption that there is no consciousness and so your experiment has to be performed on infants.

So you agree that culture is just constructed by society and doesn't follow the laws of evolution, right?



Innateness doesn't depend on comprehension. Babies don't comprehend death but are repulsed by images of it; thus a repulsion towards death is "innate" because it's not rationalized. When people begin to have rational thoughts that's when they can rationalize anything to fit their idea of "innate", but evolutionary mechanisms work under the assumption that there is no consciousness and so your experiment has to be performed on infants.

No, it certainly does.

Just because something is an innate trait does not mean it is necessarily active. It might not be active until later in life. Take sexuality as a prime example.

Just because something is an innate trait does not mean it is necessarily active. It might not be active until later in life. Take sexuality as a prime example.

Clearly you have never had sex with a baby before.

No, it certainly does.
It can't because there are too many outside variables involved. It's not like the best culture for the best collective will always develop given enough time; there are factors like hierarchies and disruption of the environment by natural forces that will always create more preferences and change the culture. When you throw thinking individuals into the mix, everything gets fucked up.

Just because something is an innate trait does not mean it is necessarily active. It might not be active until later in life. Take sexuality as a prime example.

Evolution has to function on the subconscious because that is how all organisms evolved until just a few millenia ago. How would you test for subconscious responses and what relevance would that have even if every individual held these responses?

The idea that sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. People have sex all the time just because they want to get off. There is something wrong with gays, but not on a procreation basis, but on the basis that they only have sex with other gays. For me it's find a hole and put it in, you always get the same affect. If for some reason they can't get off on the opposing sex, now that's a problem. So yes their is something wrong with gays, they are inept.

i am guessing you are bi? also, you realise that you have said that everybody who is gay or straight has something wrong with them? cos straight peopl dont get off on 'holes of the same sex', which is your argument applied to straight peopl.

i am guessing you are bi? also, you realise that you have said that everybody who is gay or straight has something wrong with them? cos straight peopl dont get off on 'holes of the same sex', which is your argument applied to straight peopl.

I'm not bi, but this argument made me realize something. It would seem then that bisexuals are superior to both homos and hetros. They have the ability to reproduce just as well any anyone else, and they have the added benefit of a far larger supply of potential sexual partners. The more different things about sex that you enjoy, the more you are going to enjoy sex, amirite?

I'm not bi, but this argument made me realize something. It would seem then that bisexuals are superior to both homos and hetros. They have the ability to reproduce just as well any anyone else, and they have the added benefit of a far larger supply of potential sexual partners. The more different things about sex that you enjoy, the more you are going to enjoy sex, amirite?

The problem with them is that they switch based on preferences (versus the omnisexual, who just don't care). So there will be times you actually can't reproduce.

i am guessing you are bi? also, you realise that you have said that everybody who is gay or straight has something wrong with them? cos straight peopl dont get off on 'holes of the same sex', which is your argument applied to straight peopl.

Actually I'm celibate still trying to find out if that's by choice or not.

Indeed, it would apply to straights as well, the only reason I didn't include them is because the forum questioned gays only.

there needs to be more gays, more women for the rest of us :D

there needs to be more gays, more women for the rest of us :D

The more progressive and liberal a society becomes, promoting the image of man-on-man relationships the more likely woman-on-woman relationships are to increase, meaning there will be a shortage of straight women and an abundance of fat dyke whores drinking buckets of IGF-1 to make their jaws bigger.

Clearly you have never had sex with a baby before.

quoted for truth and pedophilia

What shallow subject.

As I said before - being gay is just a sexual preference. Nothing more.

Why even bother discussing it? As long as someone doesn't ram their homosexuality down your throat - what difference does it make?

Like one user said - it's someone else's business. Stay out of it. What two, consenting adults do with each other in bed has nothing - NOTHING to do with you what so ever.

I am not gay - and I have nothing against gays. But - I can't tell who I hate more. The people who protest/campaign against homosexuality - or the homosexuals who protest and campaign FOR homosexuality.

Why even bother discussing it? As long as someone doesn't ram their homosexuality down your throat - what difference does it make?

Like one user said - it's someone else's business. Stay out of it. What two, consenting adults do with each other in bed has nothing - NOTHING to do with you what so ever.


It's this kind of selfish ass way of thinking that enabled homosexuality to become so prevalent in society. Being a human being is not about being in it for yourself, it's about doing what's best for your fellow man. Two men fucking in a basement won't effect anyone who stays outside, but these two men will still hold hands together in public, kiss in public, etc. One only has to look at some of the recent pride parades in SF, where many homosexuals have been photographed drinking the urine and semen of one another in the streets to get an idea of their perversion. Urine was being sold at vending stands for consumption.

And they are forcing it down humanities throat, many schools are now adopting childrens books in which homosexuality is taught as acceptable and optimal in cartoon form and other manners. Homosexuality is a mental disorder it has ties with narcissism and schizophrenia as well as pedophilia. It is a grave threat to our national security as it promotes weakness and vanity, it is an after-product of the overfeminization of society. We cannot allow man to be ill by choice.

It's this kind of selfish ass way of thinking that enabled homosexuality to become so prevalent in society. Being a human being is not about being in it for yourself, it's about doing what's best for your fellow man. Two men fucking in a basement won't effect anyone who stays outside, but these two men will still hold hands together in public, kiss in public, etc. One only has to look at some of the recent pride parades in SF, where many homosexuals have been photographed drinking the urine and semen of one another in the streets to get an idea of their perversion. Urine was being sold at vending stands for consumption.

And they are forcing it down humanities throat, many schools are now adopting childrens books in which homosexuality is taught as acceptable and optimal in cartoon form and other manners. Homosexuality is a mental disorder it has ties with narcissism and schizophrenia as well as pedophilia. It is a grave threat to our national security as it promotes weakness and vanity, it is an after-product of the overfeminization of society. We cannot allow man to be ill by choice.

To which I respond with the two points, that for some reason - you excluded from my original post.

I am not gay - and I have nothing against gays. But - I can't tell who I hate more. The people who protest/campaign against homosexuality - or the homosexuals who protest and campaign FOR homosexuality.

EDIT : And how is me being apathetic to what two consenting adults do with one another translate into "selfish ass thinking" ?

Because what those two adults do is fucking disgusting and a sick mental perversion that is corrupting our society. By leaving them to be, as if there isn't a problem occurring you are putting the lives of thousands if not millions at risk and creating a potentially devastating future for the next generation.

Because what those two adults do is fucking disgusting and a sick mental perversion that is corrupting our society. By leaving them to be, as if there isn't a problem occurring you are putting the lives of thousands if not millions at risk and creating a potentially devastating future for the next generation.


You may find it disgusting - and I may find it disgusting - but like I said - as long as they keep themselves, to themselves - what's the harm?

You have to understand - that I am completely, COMPLETELY against people flaunting their homosexuality. If that is what gets you off - then keep it to yourself, or at the very least, between you and your lover.

I would prefer that gay pride parades were abolished. Not because I have anything against gays - but - come ON - it's your sexuality, it has nothing - NOTHING to do with anyone else - and the idea of a "straight pride" parade would just seem ludicrous. Your sexuality DOES NOT define your character. And, I can't stand homosexuals who act like it does.

So - I beg this question to you, sir. Let's assume every homosexual kept it to themselves/behind close doors, just like anyone else should. Would you have a problem with it then?

They can't keep it to themselves, only a few humans can live as hermits or in secrecy, there is a burning human desire to be social and emulate the traditional family system. They will want to adopt children, work in daycares etc. It would be an uncomfortable lifestyle as they are some of the most showoffy narcissistic pricks out there. And lord knows they whine like a baby when they don't get what they want. They spread HORRIBLE fucking diseases such as some herpes strains and of course gay related death syndrome. They are nothing but trouble. But yes if they could somehow do that there wouldn't be a problem.

*yaaaawn*

*cooooocccckkkkk*

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

They can't keep it to themselves, only a few humans can live as hermits or in secrecy, there is a burning human desire to be social and emulate the traditional family system. They will want to adopt children, work in daycares etc. It would be an uncomfortable lifestyle as they are some of the most showoffy narcissistic pricks out there. And lord knows they whine like a baby when they don't get what they want. They spread HORRIBLE fucking diseases such as some herpes strains and of course gay related death syndrome. They are nothing but trouble. But yes if they could somehow do that there wouldn't be a problem.

Glad someone knows what they're talking about. I agree completely, if gays could keep that shit in the closet and didn't bother anyone with it, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen. They will always want to push the envelope further.

They will always want to push the envelope further.

Yeah, just like blacks with their stupid civil rights, and women with their annoying rights.

Gay isn't a race or a gender, dumb ass, it's a mental disorder.

Gay isn't a race or a gender, dumb ass, it's a mental disorder.

Are you retarded?

You guys just completely ignore fact, science, etc, etc.

Whenever somebody disagrees with you, they're automatically an idiot or a Homosexual.

This isn't even a fucking argument, I'm done with you.

Considering you're the one with the disorder, I'd say you're a lot closer to being a retard than we are.

I'd like to see the facts or the science that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Glad someone knows what they're talking about. I agree completely, if gays could keep that shit in the closet and didn't bother anyone with it, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen. They will always want to push the envelope further..

Yeah totally. And yes justanotherassholelicker women's "rights" and civil "rights" are a burden.

You know ive never met a homosexual person who i thought was cool or nice, at least off the top of my head.

Thats either saying something about homosexuality or me.

***Crawls back into corner***

It is a psychological disorder, but it was taking out of the DSM because of homosexual lobbyists providing political pressure, and homosexual psychologists fuxxing around with the damned DSM. There's no way you can say homosexuality isn't a psychological disorder. Creatures need to procreate, and if they don't, the species dies. We're just lucky that there's enough Mormons out there to compensate for the gay folk.

However, it would be a good thing if more people were gay, because it would help control the population. There's no reason to "hate on" homosexuals, as they're actually doing this planet a favor. Just because it offends you, doesn't mean you should try and force homosexuals to get help. Christian rehab centers for homosexuals make me RAGE.

Soooo.....
By what criteria exactly are we classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder again?

I'd like to see the facts or the science that I do not have a mental disorder.

Fixed for accuracy.

Soooo.....
By what criteria exactly are we classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder again?

Like I said before.

I personally feel it isn't.

It's just someone's sexual preference. Some people are turned on by whips and chains. Some people are turned on by overweight girls. Some people are turned on by ultra skinny girls. Some people are turned on by role playing. Some people are turned on by animals. Some people are turned on by blondes. Some people are turned on by dominating or being dominated. Some people are turned on by the same sex.

What difference does it make? To each his own. What two CONSENTING ADULTS do in a bedroom is none of my business.


PS. My best friend is gay. He's very calm, very, very mild and very quiet. In fact - him being my best friend I never even knew for about 10 years! And, hardly anyone else knows - because he doesn't run around shoving it in peoples faces. All I see it as is his sexual preference. End of story. He's no less my friend because of it.

I don't see anything wrong with someone being gay w,e man. As long as there happy

I don't see anything wrong with someone being gay w,e man. As long as there happy

Exactly.

I just wish some of them would cut it out with the parades and lifestyle bullshit.

Your gay. I get it. Fucking drop it. If you want "tolerance" then don't try to make it a big deal - because it's NOT.

Like I said before.

I personally feel it isn't.

It's just someone's sexual preference. Some people are turned on by whips and chains. Some people are turned on by overweight girls. Some people are turned on by ultra skinny girls. Some people are turned on by role playing. Some people are turned on by animals. Some people are turned on by blondes. Some people are turned on by dominating or being dominated. Some people are turned on by the same sex.

What difference does it make? To each his own. What two CONSENTING ADULTS do in a bedroom is none of my business.


PS. My best friend is gay. He's very calm, very, very mild and very quiet. In fact - him being my best friend I never even knew for about 10 years! And, hardly anyone else knows - because he doesn't run around shoving it in peoples faces. All I see it as is his sexual preference. End of story. He's no less my friend because of it.

Because a large majority of the human race isn't homosexual. Just because someone likes skinny or fat girls doesn't mean that there is something mentally wrong with them, because it's more nurture than nature that determines the type of woman you like (other than the basic shit that shows fertility).

As I said before, it was medically classified as a mental disorder until homosexual BULLSHITTERY got it taken out of the DSM. I'm not saying that I have a problem with homosexuals, or even that I care. I'm just saying that it's a mental problem, because they differ greatly from the majority.

I don't believe being gay is "natural" or necessarily genetic. I think it is largely an environmental thing, that people use in order to "fit in", or find the parent they never had, for recognition whether it is good or bad. I mostly have my impressions from my nephew who is gay, was always effiminate, was raised by grandparents is a total demon.

I don't believe being gay is "natural" or necessarily genetic. I think it is largely an environmental thing, that people use in order to "fit in", or find the parent they never had, for recognition whether it is good or bad. I mostly have my impressions from my nephew who is gay, was always effiminate, was raised by grandparents is a total demon.

Wasn't Freuds theory that at an early age, you hate one of your parents, and don't wanna be anything like them, so you act like the other one. Maybe I got it mixed up, idk. General Psych was over a year ago :/

Homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Recent studies show that attraction is caused partly by pheromones, a chemical imbalance would alter which pheromones mark an individual as sexually attractive or not.

Thats the brain chemistry part. There is probably a psychosexual homosexuality, where people 'learn' to be gay through past experiences or whatnot.

Evolution wouldn't favor species with homosexuals, so why do they appear?
Recent studies involving japanese monkeys, chimps, baboons and ants linked the proportion of homosexual individuals to population density and the surrounding land's capacity to support them.
That said, maybe homosexuals can be a population's method of controlling births when density is too high.
Evolution makes life better than any design ;)

That said, it may be an imbalance in the brain's chemistry or whatever, but that doesn't make it harmful to the rest of the population. Thus, there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with it. I mean, who cares and why waste valuable time discriminating?

Wasn't Freuds theory that at an early age, you hate one of your parents, and don't wanna be anything like them, so you act like the other one. Maybe I got it mixed up, idk. General Psych was over a year ago :/

Freud was full of shit. Read into his theories (and psychology in general) and you'll find that he was totally wrong when it came to anything testable.

Homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Recent studies show that attraction is caused partly by pheromones, a chemical imbalance would alter which pheromones mark an individual as sexually attractive or not.


So they partly find the male smell attractive. Just because you like the way dudes smell, doesn't mean you're gay. When I LOOK at girls, I find them attractive. It can be from well out of smell range. When homosexuals LOOK at the same sex, they get attracted to them, not solely by smell.

I stick to my original point: homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

I stick to my original point: homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

Oh dear God. I do believe these are grounds to revoke your free-will.

Oh dear God. I do believe these are grounds to revoke your free-will.

Shut your mouth you stupid fucking faggot.

homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

oh?

Like pale skin...

And Left-handedness...

Shut your mouth you stupid fucking faggot.

Oh, get fucked. Either defend that douchebag's opinion, refute it, or, as I have suggested, get fucked

If homosexuality's genetic, then eventually they'll get equivalent civil rights. If it's a choice, well... can't stop people from making choices.

I stick to my original point: homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

The "norm" is not static.

If the norm were men wearing ladies' panties, wearing boxers would be taboo. In ten years, wearing boxers could become the norm.

Society's standards of normalty change with the wind.

I stick to my original point: homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I do believe totse has a 12 and over rule.

I'm 18, dumbfuck. What I was saying was pretty much a summary of cultural relativism. Look it up.

Welsh, you are exactly right, the norm does change, and if it were the norm for guys to wear what we now consider ladies panties, then most guys would. Don't be so closed minded. Look out of the scope of your own culture.

There's no such thing as right or wrong, there's just public opinion.

oh?

Like pale skin...

And Left-handedness...


Hitler was left handed.

So they partly find the male smell attractive. Just because you like the way dudes smell, doesn't mean you're gay. When I LOOK at girls, I find them attractive. It can be from well out of smell range. When homosexuals LOOK at the same sex, they get attracted to them, not solely by smell.

I stick to my original point: homosexuality is WRONG because it is against the NORM.

Sympathetic stimulation; sight could induce sexual attraction because of the sights association with the smell. So a guy could look attractive, but what you're really lusting after is the effect his musty cock has on your brain.

Just a thought.