My theory is that a conservative fuckhead who cannot SPELL the word *homesexuality* or the word *physcological* might not have a very firm grasp of the motivations of homo sapiens when it comes to sexual preference.
Actually I think the word he was going for was psychological. In which he begins to float away with when he mentions "chemical imbalance". Can't even keep his speculations straight, because it sure as hell is no "theory" anybody else follows.

I have begun to look at the gay situation more practically these days. When you throw differences of moral principles aside, people can more easily reach similar conclusions.

In this case, instead of determining whether homosexuality is right or wrong, I concentrate on how it affects me. Since I don't see how it affects me negatively, and I get along just fine with gays, I produce the conclusion that homosexuality is fine with me.

In fact, I have begun to look at a lot of the traditionally "moral questions" practically. I advise everyone to give it a try.

Is there right or wrong in eating chocolate with your eyes closed? Stand on one foot when urinating? Shower 3 times a day? Since we are not affected by it or other people doing it we don't care to say there is right or wrong in these things.

How does the existance of homosexuals affect you? If there are negative effects, then you have every right to think it's wrong, and vice versa.

Originally posted by Freethinker
My theory is that a conservative fuckhead who cannot SPELL the word *homesexuality* or the word *physcological* might not have a very firm grasp of the motivations of homo sapiens when it comes to sexual preference.
Given the kid's original statement, this is a little harsh, don't you think?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I assume this is backed up by your years of research in this field? You're probably a Ph.D too, right? So by this question, I guess every topic you have ever commented on has been brought about by your years of research in each and every field of topic discussed, right?

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
I have begun to look at the gay situation more practically these days. When you throw differences of moral principles aside, people can more easily reach similar conclusions.

In this case, instead of determining whether homosexuality is right or wrong, I concentrate on how it effects me. Since I don't see how it effects me negatively, and I get along just fine with gays, I produce the conclusion that homosexuality is fine with me.

In fact, I have begun to look at a lot of the traditionally "moral questions" practically. I advise everyone to give it a try.

Is there right or wrong in eating chocolate with your eyes closed? Stand on one foot when urinating? Shower 3 times a day? Since we are not effected by it or other people doing it we don't care to say there is right or wrong in these things.

How does the existance of homosexuals effects you? If there are negative effects, then you have every right to think it's wrong, and vice versa.
I think it affects all of us. Given your logic, if some prick in Tennessee gets drunk every night, drives his truck like an asshole, and doesn't get caught, how does it effect me living in Chicago? Well the short answer is it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. The point is over sending a good message to our developing children, and homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted as harmless. It’s a mental sickness in which scientists, doctors, and neurobiologists should study it in an effort to eradicate the flaw – I don’t think the answer is to embrace it as normal. Do they do that with leukemia? They put it on the back burner because homosexuality doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the subject affected with queerness, but the effect on our children watching a show where a bunch of lightened loafers parade around an otherwise normal person in an effort to “make him better” is a disturbing premise, at best, and the concept pisses me off to no end.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think it affects all of us. Given your logic, if some prick in Tennessee gets drunk every night, drives his truck like an asshole, and doesn't get caught, how does it effect me living in Chicago? Well the short answer is it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. The point is over sending a good message to our developing children, and homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted as harmless. It’s a mental sickness in which scientists, doctors, and neurobiologists should study it in an effort to eradicate the flaw – I don’t think the answer is to embrace it as normal. Do they do that with leukemia? They put it on the back burner because homosexuality doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the subject affected with queerness, but the effect on our children watching a show where a bunch of lightened loafers parade around an otherwise normal person in an effort to “make him better” is a disturbing premise, at best, and the concept pisses me off to no end.
Seriously, Prae, what's wrong with homosexuality as long as it doesn't adversely affect birth rates (i.e. as long as, 15-20% or so of the population abstains from heterosexual relationships)? And it may go against the Bible as well, but that's for you to teach your kids. Otherwise, homosexuality has no demonstrable negative effects that I can think of. Have I missed something?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think it affects all of us. Given your logic, if some prick in Tennessee gets drunk every night, drives his truck like an asshole, and doesn't get caught, how does it effect me living in Chicago? Well the short answer is it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. The point is over sending a good message to our developing children, and homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted as harmless.

I disagree with that characterization in two ways.

One, i do not agree that is the the responsibilty of people who choose to partcipate in things which may harm them to **send a good message to** the chiiiiildren. People who drink alcohol are doing something that causes harm to themselves. Children see that every day. It is not hidden from children in this society that alcohol is for sale, nor that people consume it. It is not Constitutional to prohibit citizens of the U.S. from drinking alcohol for the reason that it will not **send a good message to** the children.

Secondly, ANYONE may be drawn to drinking alcohol and into alcoholism.

But people who are born with brown eyes will not suddenly wake one morning to find their eyes have turned green, and people who are born with no gene for and no inate propensity for homosexuality do not suddenly wake one morning to find themselves becoming homosexual, while those born with a same-gender attraction as a part of their phychological makeup have the possibility [which, absent societal pressures and prejudices would likely be an inevitability instead of a possibility] to later develop that trait.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It’s a mental sickness and scientists, doctors, and neurobiologists should study it in an effort to eradicate the flaw

Here, you are in disagreement with the entire mental health community.......untold thousands of doctors and researchers who have studied the issue for many decades.

I tend toward their view being the correct one, as opposed to an untrained person proclaiming --"Homosexuality is just a mental sickness".

Originally posted by The Praetorian
.....homosexuality doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the subject affected with queerness, but the effect on our children watching a show where a bunch of lightened loafers parade around an otherwise normal person in an effort to “make him better” is a disturbing premise, at best

Far more disturbing for me is the fact that a significant number of people on this planet have that sort of mindset.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Seriously, Prae, what's wrong with homosexuality as long as it doesn't adversely affect birth rates (i.e. as long as, 15-20% or so of the population abstains from heterosexual relationships)? And it may go against the Bible as well, but that's for you to teach your kids. Otherwise, homosexuality has no demonstrable negative effects that I can think of. Have I missed something?
No, I don't think you missed anything. I've boiled this down to a matter of opinion, and as I see it, it's an illness. Since when have we, as people, praised or accepted an illness without trying to correct it? It seems contradictory to me if we've established guidelines for accepting certain abnormalities, but fight to find a cure for others. Why shouldn't we fight to fix any problem associated with the development of a healthy society? Do you see my point, or would you like me to explain further? If so, just ask...

Answer one question for me Freethinker. Is homosexuality normal? Keep in mind, normal is defined as 1) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical. 2) Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. 3) Something normal; the standard. 4) The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.

I could give a shit about how the psychological universe can purport studies that pillow homosexuality for being acceptable, but do it in lieu of logic. I feel as bad for a homosexual as I would for someone suffering from any other malady. Shouldn't we work together as people to correct all abnormalities?

No, I don't think you missed anything. I've boiled this down to a matter of opinion, and as I see it, it's an illness.
Uh, how can an illness be based off of opinion? (note: I consider very few psychological "disorders" to be an "illness", depression for example)

Since when have we, as people, praised or accepted an illness without trying to correct it? It seems contradictory to me if we've established guidelines for accepting certain abnormalities, but fight to find a cure for others. Why shouldn't we fight to fix any problem associated with the development of a healthy society? Do you see my point, or would you like me to explain further? If so, just ask...
Now my question is how does it hamper the development of a healthy society?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I've boiled this down to a matter of opinion, and as I see it, it's an illness.
illness: 1. a. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness. b. A disease. 2. Obsolete Evil; wickedness.

Okay, well homosexuality does not create poor health, and it’s not a disease. As for being “evil”, I don’t think it’s evil at all. How can you prove it’s evil? Maybe with the Bible, but that is meaningless for we have a separation of church and state. So I don’t think it’s an illness

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Since when have we, as people, praised or accepted an illness without trying to correct it?
Why correct something that isn’t causing any harm?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Why shouldn't we fight to fix any problem associated with the development of a healthy society?
How is homosexuality not healthy?

Originally posted by HaVoK
So by this question, I guess every topic you have ever commented on has been brought about by your years of research in each and every field of topic discussed, right?

I tend to think there's a difference between commenting and coming up with one's own scientific theories.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Answer one question for me Freethinker. Is homosexuality normal?

I don't feel that it's a relevant question when talking about whcih rights and freedoms will be granted to citizens, but let's say for the sake of argument that the answer is --"No, homosexuality is not "normal" ".

Being born with one green eye and one blue eye would ALSO not be considered "normal"

But THAT is NO reason for society to --in direct contravention to the United States Constitution-- make a rule that --"People who have one green eye and one blue eye can NOT marry one another (thus gaining the subesquent LEGAL rights accorded by such a contract) in the way that "normal" people do".


Having something like, say, both of your ears surgically removed would ALSO not be considered "normal" by me, nor by anyone else on the planet.

But THAT is NO reason for society to --in direct contravention to the United States Constitution--make a rule --"People who have their ears surgically removed can NOT marry one another like "normal" people do".

I think it affects all of us. Given your logic, if some prick in Tennessee gets drunk every night, drives his truck like an asshole, and doesn't get caught, how does it effect me living in Chicago? Well the short answer is it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. The point is over sending a good message to our developing children, and homosexuality shouldn’t be accepted as harmless. It’s a mental sickness in which scientists, doctors, and neurobiologists should study it in an effort to eradicate the flaw – I don’t think the answer is to embrace it as normal. Do they do that with leukemia? They put it on the back burner because homosexuality doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the subject affected with queerness, but the effect on our children watching a show where a bunch of lightened loafers parade around an otherwise normal person in an effort to “make him better” is a disturbing premise, at best, and the concept pisses me off to no end.

If a murderer lurks in my area, it would affect me. But I don't feel affected negatively having homosexuals around me. I do not feel treatened or inconvenient.

By saying that homosexuality is an illness or abnormality and thusly wrong you already steered away from my original focus, which was looking at the issue from a completely practical view.

You could not help steer the focus back to morality. Unfortunately everyone has their own standards.

Answer one question for me Freethinker. Is homosexuality normal? Keep in mind, normal is defined as 1) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical. 2) Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. 3) Something normal; the standard. 4) The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.

By those definitions, no it is not "normal", except for the "occurring in a natural way" part since it does not seem to be a choice. But, homosexuality is not the statistical norm or the typical sexual preference. It is just as abnormal as redhair, lefthanded people, and people who are attracted to large people. So, what is your point here?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Being born with one green eye and one blue eye would ALSO not be considered "normal"

Having something like, say, both of your ears surgically removed would ALSO not be considered "normal" by me, nor by anyone else on the planet.

But THAT is NO reason for society to --in direct contravention to the United States Constitution--make a rule --"People who have their ears surgically removed can NOT marry one another like "normal" people do".
These are good points and while I understand where you're coming from, your examples don't prevent those people from propagating the human race, whereas homosexuality does. I was referring to "normal" as the general standard that encompasses the one thing we need to do in order to spur uniformed growth - reproduce, and that's NATURAL reproduction without the aid of a surrogate mother or a test tube.

Originally posted by dnamertz
So, what is your point here?
I guess it's just a differing opinion, that's all. I don't know if I had a concrete point as much as I was just sharing my perspective, and as you guys pointed out, my opinion is definitely subject to interpretation and criticism. I understand where you're coming from, but my perspective is rooted in a fair amount of thought and consideration. Writing is one of the weakest forms of human communication, and I find myself falling prey to a lack of eloquence. Sorry, but my brain isn’t working all too well right now…

Originally posted by The Praetorian
These are good points and while I understand where you're coming from, your examples don't prevent those people from propagating the human race, whereas homosexuality does.

?!?!?1

Why should the *propagation of the human race* be considered a factor in this issue??!?!

a) society at large has no right to inhibit or obstruct people's right to their sexual activites of choice simply because those activities are not condusive to the *propagation of the human race*

b) allowing homosexual marriage will have virtually no effect on the continuing *propagation of the human race*

c) even if it DID have an effect, it would be a positive effect, in that it might cause a small decrease in the number of births, which on a planet as overcrowded as this one would be a desirable outcome


d) whether it has an effect or not, it is no reason to deny homosexuals the same access as everyone else to the legal rights that come with state-sanctioned marriage

Originally posted by The Praetorian
These are good points and while I understand where you're coming from, your examples don't prevent those people from propagating the human race, whereas homosexuality does. I was referring to "normal" as the general standard that encompasses the one thing we need to do in order to spur uniformed growth - reproduce, and that's NATURAL reproduction without the aid of a surrogate mother or a test tube.
First of all, gay people are perfectly capable of having children. I should know, I am the product of a gay mother who had a child the natural way. Secondly, could not homosexuality be nature/God's way of controlling population? There is no doubt that homosexuality is a natural thing, as many animals can exhibit homosexual behavior and/or be entirely gay. That said, it could be a natural process which ultimately prevents overpopulation. Thus, beneficial, not detrimental.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
First of all, gay people are perfectly capable of having children. I should know, I am the product of a gay mother who had a child the natural way.
But it wasn't entirely natural, for your mother must have felt an attraction to members of the same sex while she continued to engage in a relationship with your father. That said, I'm glad she had you. You're the brightest 16 year-old I've ever encountered, and speaking of which, I'd like to tackle this next:
Secondly, could not homosexuality be nature/God's way of controlling population?
Maybe, but it's a sad reality when intelligent people can't reproduce the way nature intended. I find Vile to be really astute, but unfortunately, reality stipulates he can't have children because he's not attracted to women. Am I amiss for feeling this way? I don't think so, but I'm not the arbiter of what's right and wrong, so I guess we'll just have to boil it down to a matter of opinion. I don't think it's right to have children with someone whom you don't intend to spend the rest of your life with. I do realize this expectation is kind of a double standard, and for me to make it isn't entirely fair, but I think logic should dictate what people do to coexist in a truly natural fashion.

And Btw, if this is the case, then obviously gays shouldn't ever step outside the bounds of their god given sexual desires to have children themselves due to population control, right?
Originally posted by BorgHunter
There is no doubt that homosexuality is a natural thing, as many animals can exhibit homosexual behavior and/or be entirely gay. That said, it could be a natural process which ultimately prevents overpopulation. Thus, beneficial, not detrimental.
Whether or not it's a natural thing is debatable. I think it may be naturally occurring, but make no mistake about it - it's not "natural". Natural: (adj.) Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Why should the *propagation of the human race* be considered a factor in this issue??!?!
It's the reason we've made it this far, is it not?

quote:Originally posted by Freethinker;
"Why should the *propagation of the human race* be considered a factor in this issue??!?!"

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It's the reason we've made it this far, is it not?

Yes, the propagation of the species is why we're here.

But the issue of *propagation of the human race* has little to nothing to do with whether or not we as a society should allow homosexuals the same marriage rights as other citizens.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I'd agree with that.

Here's something that ought to scare the hell out of all you anal pencil snappers.

I watched a sci fi movie a couple of years ago and one of the sub plots was how humans handled the overpopulation problem on earth. Interestingly in the movie they encouraged people to have gay relationships so that they wouldn't breed.

I can hear those pencils snapping off as your butts clench all the way out here in Portland, Oregon. lol.

Did you know that the gay community calls us straight people "breeders"?

Originally posted by Echo2
Did you know that the gay community calls us straight people "breeders"?
Is that supposed to be an insult?

I don't think so. But if it makes you feel better you can take it that way.

And btw, Echo, "anal pencil snappers"? That's original...:rolleyes:

I have an aquaintance who refers to uptight people as pencil snappers. He says things like "he's so uptight you could snap a pencil off in his butt".

That's pretty vivid imagery. You actually have acquaintances that talk to you like that? I mean, really, the first time they used the term "pencil snapper", I'm sure you had to ask what they meant. That must have been a pretty awkward conversation...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That's pretty vivid imagery. You actually have acquaintances that talk to you like that? I mean, really, the first time they used the term "pencil snapper", I'm sure you had to ask what they meant. That must have been a pretty awkward conversation...

Only if one is so uptight that they have to use a crow bar to get their butt cheaks apart.

I

Originally posted by Echo2
Only if one is so uptight that they have to use a crow bar to get their butt cheaks apart.

I

so....your theory is the ONLY way to be laid-back and loose is to have someone of the same sex ram something up your corn hole?

Bwahahahahahaha! That's a pretty funny conclusion considering the circumstances of this conversation...:)

quote:Originally posted by Freethinker;
"
Yes, the propagation of the species is why we're here.

But the issue of *propagation of the human race* has little to nothing to do with whether or not we as a society should allow homosexuals the same marriage rights as other citizens."


Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yes, I'd agree with that.

OK......but that contradicts the position you took a few posts prior to this one, when you said ---

""your examples don't prevent those people from propagating the human race, whereas homosexuality does. I was referring to "normal" as the general standard that encompasses the one thing we need to do in order to spur uniformed growth - reproduce""

Originally posted by Freethinker
Yes, the propagation of the species is why we're here.

But the issue of *propagation of the human race* has little to nothing to do with whether or not we as a society should allow homosexuals the same marriage rights as other citizens."

OK......but that contradicts the position you took a few posts prior to this one, when you said ---

""your examples don't prevent those people from propagating the human race, whereas homosexuality does. I was referring to "normal" as the general standard that encompasses the one thing we need to do in order to spur uniformed growth - reproduce""
Marriage rights and propagating the species are two entirely separate issues. I'm not against giving them rights, I'm against doing nothing to grow humanity, which as you know, is a fundamental certainty regarding homosexuality. I realize that they're here to stay, and I have no problem with that, but I'd like to reiterate that my reason for stating what I did was to point out something I saw as a potential flaw in the very reason for our existence. I don't see any contradiction in that...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Marriage rights and propagating the species are two entirely separate issues. I'm not against giving them rights, I'm against doing nothing to grow humanity, which as you know, is a fundamental certainty regarding homosexuality. I realize that they're here to stay, and I have no problem with that, but I'd like to reiterate that my reason for stating what I did was to point out something I saw as a potential flaw in the very reason for our existence. I don't see any contradiction in that...

Ahhh...ok.

My apologoes for misunderstanding your position.

I guess the reason that you and I come at this from such different angles is that I am very much AGAINST doing anything that would *grow* humankind.

Our species has ALREADY "grown" to the point that we are in line to have a massive die off.

In the very near future, there is about to be a severe ---and I don't think there is any way to express that word *severe* strongly enough to convey the seriousness of it--- problem with TOO MANY HUMANS on this planet.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Ahhh...ok.

My apologoes for misunderstanding your position.

I guess the reason that you and I come at this from such different angles is that I am very much AGAINST doing anything that would *grow* humankind.

Our species has ALREADY "grown" to the point that we are in line to have a massive die off.

In the very near future, there is about to be a severe ---and I don't think there is any way to express that word *severe* strongly enough to convey the seriousness of it--- problem with TOO MANY HUMANS on this planet.
Very possibly, but I'm not ready to sell us down the river just yet.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Very possibly, but I'm not ready to sell us down the river just yet.

???!?

Allowing homosexuals to marry one another will likely have so negligible an effect on the number of births worldwide that it will not put off by even one minute the day in the future when planet Earth is so overcrowded that we humans are standing knee deep in one another's feces and wearing air masks to breathe.