Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 But you'd still think of them as being deviant perverts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I would? explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 It was a question, not a statement. And it's based on your predication, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 well why would I? I love ma parents, I wouldn`t wanna MARRY them, same with ma mates male or female. there`s different sorts of love, and homo type is deviant. love for your fellow man, didn`t extend to getting in the sack with him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 As I said, "getting in the sack" as you put it is not a requirement for love. You have yet to explain why "hetero man loves male" is different to "homo man loves male". 'Deviant' and 'perverse' don't even apply, and even if you could force them to your application of both words is horribly flawed (by your definitions a pipe-smoker is a deviant, and a cig-smoker is a pervert - even though both states are contradictory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Look. The argument 'Homosexuals are wrong' is not permissable in today society. Can we not just drop it? This argument allways goes the same way. The words Nazi and Aryan are lingering on the outsirts of this discussion. I suggest we leave the opinons alone before they intrude firther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Who promoted atm? I assume the continuation of logical discussion is ok by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 "'Deviant' and 'perverse' don't even apply, and even if you could force them to your application of both words is horribly flawed (by your definitions a pipe-smoker is a deviant, and a cig-smoker is a pervert - even though both states are contradictory)." these are not my definitions and smoking fullstop is indeed a perverse thing to do, unatural and runs contrary to our instincts (until we become addicted, and even then that large majority of folks know it`s wrong and bad for them). "You have yet to explain why "hetero man loves male" is different to "homo man loves male"." you even have to ASK that? *sheesh* for a start I have YET TO explain nothing! if you cannot see the abundantly clear difference between the 2 already, then ANY answer I`m likely to provide will go right over your head. but just on the off chance it may not, would YOU wish to Marry your best mate? if no, why no? and therein will lie part of the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :Who promoted atm? I assume the continuation of logical discussion is ok by you. lol, yeah ATM, we`re cool, we`re just setting out definitions is all, nothing nazi or arian, just plain chit chat dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :these are not my definitions and smoking fullstop is indeed a perverse thing to do, unatural and runs contrary to our instincts (until we become addicted, and even then that large majority of folks know it`s wrong and bad for them). You didn't understand then. you even have to ASK that? *sheesh*for a start I have YET TO explain nothing! if you cannot see the abundantly clear difference between the 2 already, then ANY answer I`m likely to provide will go right over your head. If it was as obvious as you claim I would not need to ask. Time and time again you have read and written "evidence your claims" on this forum. This claim of yours isn't magically immune. but just on the off chance it may not, would YOU wish to Marry your best mate?if no, why no? and therein will lie part of the answer You're assuming that: a) I have some kind of ranking system for my closest friends, (which I don't), b) I apportion emotional response inequally according to some artificial system, (which I don't), c) Whatever you (and therefore "everyone else", naturally) would do is what I would do, (which it clearly isn't), d) My "best mate" - if we could figure out who that might be - is going to be male, (which is by no means certain), e) That the only reason I'd marry is for love, (which is unlikely), f) That I would not enter a loveless marriage, (unlikely I would but still an assumption), g) That I would want to marry anyone at all. I'm sure there are more, but I have to go now as I have a lift home. L8rs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Just because the Bible says something is immoral doesn't mean it actually is, or vice-versa. For instance, Jesus lived in a society that practiced slavery; yet not a single passage in the Bible opposes it. I believe the divorce rate here in America is above 50% nowadays, so you really can't argue the emotional merits of heterosexual relationships versus homesexual relationships. YT, if 51% of the population was gay, would you be calling yourself a deviant pervert? I highly doubt it, you'd just cite the bible and argue your feelings till the day you die. The bible was more about respecting and accepting those different from you than it was about persecuting people for their beliefs... did you miss that part? I think the bible was quite against persecution. And as for the validity of the Bible, who knows who put in the part about Sodom... could have been some homophobe that had no idea what Jesus said... since the Bible was written a longgg time after his death, in a language that neither Jesus nor his contemporaries spoke (the Bible was written in Hebrew, in the time and place of Jesus they spoke Aramaic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I really fail to see your difficulty in understanding a basic concept such as GAY feelings and normal ones. one is normal, the other is inapropriate. hell, we even have specific words for this: Gay, homosexual and a good many that I won`t mention, so if there WAS NO DIFFERENCE, why have these words? Duuuh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Inappropriate for what reason? "because the bible says so" is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 as does nature, gay behaviour is only evident under unnatural circumstances. and if indeed they were a Genuine 3`rd sex as the majority claim, then surely their sex acts would allow them to breed, and that`s clearly not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Romeo and Juliet is not a great love story because they produced offspring fantastically well. Love does not equal reproduction, we have risen considerably above the need to procreate. One could argue that same sex unions increasing in society is the only logical way of reducing the population explosion. It's fits natural laws well enough. I think Faf cited it as a study not to long ago, but the analysis of rats in an overpopulated enviroment increased the boyrat on boyrat lovin', and I don't think that can be classed as unnatural. But, your opinon is your opinion. It don't hurt no-one much, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 There's many many many things that humans do that do not occur naturally. In fact, sex for fun is virtually never observed in the "natural" animal world (with the notable exception of dolphins). Humans can't live a single day without doing something unnatural. Intelligence changes everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I could add alot of other examples of mankinds proclivity towards the unatural all as equaly twisted as gaydom. but I think I`ll leave this thread before I get into trouble LOL but I DID state from the outset, my veiws were a little Right Wing! so anyway, to poster #1, that`s my veiw on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 So then anything that deviates from the majority and nature is "twisted" now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Sod it. All love is twisted, it's in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 My two cents Agree with YT on the hypocricy of the Church in giving in to popular sentiment, but do not think it relevant to the initial question Sex for fun occurs in bobobos too, probably other species but don't know offhand Homosexuality occurs in other animals as well As for homosexuals and promicuity, Pinker pointed out nicely you get two men with male reproductive strategies and no "brakes" imposed on the system by female reproductive strategy (and I do not mean to imply women do not enjoy sex, just that is more costly for women) and you end up with a lot of sex and a lot of variable partners in that sex. Simple. And not to say some homosexual men do not choose to be monogamous, but I do see a basis for the "homosexual lifestyle" claim. However, whether or not that is to be considered moral or anything else rests on teh question of promisuity, far as I'm concerned, and far as I'm concerned is not promisuity itself which is a problem but only if trust is betrayed in the process. I come down marriage should be a legal contract, the state should recognize same sex marriages, if any church chooses not to bless it that is their business, but their scruples should have no bearing on what the State does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :as does nature, gay behaviour is only evident under unnatural circumstances. and if indeed they were a Genuine 3`rd sex as the majority claim, then surely their sex acts would allow them to breed, and that`s clearly not the case. So you're saying that being gay is unnatural, because if it were natural there'd be... like... gay people in the human population? Nice reasoning there. I have NEVER heard anyone call homosexuality "the third sex", and it's not like I'm never in a position where I might hear that cropping up. I wouldn't credit that as an argument for either side, because it's just rhetoric. Furthermore, you are oh so very wrong: 1 - There is nothing stopping homosexual men in general from reproducing whatsoever, other than choice. Many gay men do reproduce, 2 - Your model of the world does not account for lesbians, who can and do reproduce, 3 - Your model of the world does not account for bisexuals, who can and do reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 "Would you do that if you did want to marry someone of the sam e sex?" top myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Ok. That's just insulting. I'm offended by that statement on so many levels. You can’t insinuate people should kill themselves just because they don't conform your personal idea of normal. If you have inflammatory viewpoints, you should discuss them in a reasonable way. If your not capable of accepting a lifestyle, you should at least attempt to be civil about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :"Would you do that if you did want to marry someone of the sam e sex?" top myself! If you were the sort of person who might find themselves in that position, surely it's unlikely you'd have these views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 blike said in post # :I'd top myself too. I think he meant suicide, dirty blike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now