Homophobia

rainbow kirby · 20-03-2009 7:53pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

there is a differnce between 'civil union' and marriage and thats were you dont understand..

Separate but "equal" is not true equality.

thelordofcheese · 20-03-2009 7:54pm

Ironé wrote: »

Maybe you could explain what that difference is?

More to the point, if it's a legal difference then you'll need to do some major song and dance act to explain why that's ok.

philologos · 20-03-2009 7:56pm

Ironé wrote: »

Why is a family necessarily a mother and father and children?

I don't need to get into a biology lesson do I?

Ironé wrote: »

I have no children but am married and consider us a family. My friend is a single parent - she considers herself and her children a family. There is nothing unstable about either of our situations.

I consider both you and your spouse to have the potential to have a family, and I consider your single mother friend a family. I believe a complete and full family unit is best for a child though, a father, a mother and a child.

Ironé wrote: »

If its about stability shouldn't we encourage families with same sex parents to marry?

It's more down to the notion that a family without both a mother and a father is suboptimal. It's important for a child to have both a male and a female rolemodel when growing up. I think the State should be encouraging to make sure that children are brought up the best way they can be, and I think the State should be defending the biological family unit as a result of that view.

Ironé wrote: »

And really what is the difference between civil partnership and marriage anyway?

To me it is more striking than most, if you consider a marriage merely a legal contract then it is going to have less significance. I personally consider it to be the joining of a man to his wife, and together they become one as was naturally intended. I think civil partnership differs legally on issues of custody to children. It's also not possible to jointly adopt children unless you are married.

N.B - As for my opposition to gay marriage, I think the solution could be made much easier by the Government in allowing us to vote on the issue in a referendum to finally codify Irish opinion on the matter and allowing us to make it clear for ourselves. If the Irish population voted to approve of gay marriage, then of course I would be forced to accept it. My opposition would remain, but it would make it easier if they just bit the bullet. The peoples vote should be had before anything like changing marriage structures came into being.

20-03-2009 7:58pm

Jakkass wrote: »

It's more down to the notion that a family without both a mother and a father is suboptimal. It's important for a child to have both a male and a female rolemodel when growing up.

And of course the child would never have grandparents, uncles, aunts, female/male teachers...

...and together they become one as was naturally intended.

Naturally intended?

It's either natural or intended, make up your mind.

philologos · 20-03-2009 8:04pm

bluewolf wrote: »

And of course the child would never have grandparents, uncles, aunts, female/male teachers...

Having a male and a female to be able to contact at all times within the home and relate to on certain issues is productive for a child surely. Mothers will be able to relate to their children better on some things than fathers and vice versa. I personally think the idea that a mother can be replaced with a man, and a father replaced with by a woman is really absurd.

20-03-2009 8:06pm

Throwing in some refs:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=290849

So what do the studies find? Summarizing the research, the American Psychological Association concluded in its July 2004 “Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children,”
There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. . . . Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.17
Our own review of the evidence is consistent with that characterization. Specifically, the research supports four conclusions.

First, lesbian mothers, and gay fathers (about whom less is known), are much like other parents. Where differences are found, they sometimes favor same-sex parents. For instance, although one study finds that heterosexual fathers had greater emotional involvement with their children than did lesbian co-mothers, others find either no difference or that lesbian co-mothers seem to be more involved in the lives of their children than are heterosexual fathers.18

That one seems to be a 10 page journal ...

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

and just for interest:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122101929.htm

philologos · 20-03-2009 8:10pm

There are journals both ways as we discussed on the other thread on this less than a year ago. However for childhood development it's regarded that mothers and fathers both have differing effects on their children. Actually interestingly one that came up was on language development. I must look through that thread again and see if I can find some of the stuff there.

schween · 20-03-2009 8:11pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

.... have friends that are that way inclined.

I hope these "friends" know you think their existence is sick.

midlandsmissus · 20-03-2009 8:13pm

I wonder how representative this thread is of Ireland, not very much I'd say as if I'm in the pub any given weekend I hear men saying(always men):

"Gay b*stards'
'f*ckin fruits'
'ya pansy f*cker'
'hur hur Joe looked at Micks arse there, backs to the wall lads, backs to the wall'

It seems like when a group of lads ever get together they either slag gay men, or each other for being gay if they do something even slightly effeminate.

Why's this - insecurity?

AckwelFoley · 20-03-2009 8:42pm

I dont judge ppl by their sexual preferences as long as it involves consenting adults.

i support all people in their pursuit of happiness.. Its what we all atleast deserve.

Volvoboy · 20-03-2009 8:47pm

I'm no Homophobe, i'm not scared of my house....

.....:pac:

Handsome Bob · 20-03-2009 8:53pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

No im not sayin its passed on genetically and i dont belive ppl are born gay.
But les hypothetically say that centuries ago there was liek a culling of homosecual ppl ie witches style the repercussions of being gay would trickle on and on through centuries... and yes our civil liberties would all remain the same as we are all one and equal but if gay ppl want to marry then why dont they just do it online. It s wrong and you know its wrong, even the homosexual ppl that are reading this or are posting or have family or firneds and agree with it know deep down that its wrong.

No, I don't know it's wrong actually. Is it my right to judge a person and how they live their life? No, and it's not your right either. Gay people are being true to themselves and once more they aren't hurting anyone else. What's wrong with that?

philologos · 20-03-2009 9:07pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

No, I don't know it's wrong actually. Is it my right to judge a person and how they live their life? No, and it's not your right either. Gay people are being true to themselves and once more they aren't hurting anyone else. What's wrong with that?

I know this may sound odd, but I think I'm in agreement with this post in certain respects. I don't think I am meant to judge others, or rather that it isn't my job to. I personally hold the moral belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, others don't. It is up to them to explore the ethics of their own situation. I'm also of the opinion that it is wrong, however that doesn't give me a right or responsibility to say that these people are any more wrong than myself. I've done things that I would consider to be wrong before, everyone has done things which are wrong. It's basically the door to hypocrisy if we have our own failings to judge others for what we consider to be theirs.

jaffa20 · 20-03-2009 9:08pm

Not another thread about gay people.

Seriously, any thread that stereotypes a group should be locked.

The worst thing about the OP's homophobia is that he doesn't have any genuine reason for it. For religious people to judge my lifestyle and what i do in my private lifestyle is acceptable as it goes against their lifestyle and beliefs.

But the OP just doesn't seem to fully understand that we are people just like straight people who simply are attracted to the same sex. We don't pose a threat to society.

Also, i'm sick of those who say that gay people are loud, in your face etc. How can you stereotype thousands of lonely, quiet and private gay people by the few who annoy you? In all honesty, i'm not a fan of listening to my mates talking about shagging his bird the other night, but it's life.

Anyway, i'm off to carry out more of the disgusting acts the OP hates.

PM me OP if you really want the intimate details of what i do in my private life;)

Professey Chin · 20-03-2009 9:09pm

snyper wrote: »

I dont judge ppl by their sexual preferences as long as it involves anyone no matter what.

i support all people in their pursuit of happiness.. Its what we all atleast deserve.

Fixed :pac:

humanji · 20-03-2009 9:09pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I know this may sound odd, but I think I'm in agreement with this post in certain respects. I don't think I am meant to judge others, or rather that it isn't my job to. I personally hold the moral belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, others don't. It is up to them to explore the ethics of their own situation. I'm also of the opinion that it is wrong, however that doesn't give me a right or responsibility to say that these people are any more wrong than myself. I've done things that I would consider to be wrong before, everyone has done things which are wrong. It's basically the door to hypocrisy if we have our own failings to judge others for what we consider to be theirs.

Out of curiosity, if there was a referendom tomorrow to allow gay marriage to be legalised, would you vote yes or no?

philologos · 20-03-2009 9:13pm

humanji wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if there was a referendom tomorrow to allow gay marriage to be legalised, would you vote yes or no?

Well if the referendum was called to ask for the opinion of the population on gay marriage, I would vote based on my opinion of the subject, that marriage in the State should remain between a man and a woman.

However having said this, if the result ruled in favour of gay marriage I would have to accept that this was the peoples vote, and that this is the way the Irish people want their State to be run. I personally would remain opposed but this would have little or no impact on the reality.

By what I said on not judging I was referring to the ethics of homosexuality rather than on the specific issue of gay marriage. I think if the State asks me for my opinion on marriage through vote I have my right to let them know of my personal position.

humanji · 20-03-2009 9:18pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Well if the referendum was called to ask for the opinion of the population on gay marriage, I would vote based on my opinion of the subject, that marriage in the State should remain between a man and a woman.

However having said this, if the result ruled in favour of gay marriage I would have to accept that this was the peoples vote, and that this is the way the Irish people want their State to be run. I personally would remain opposed but this would have little or no impact on the reality.

By what I said on not judging I was referring to the ethics of homosexuality rather than on the specific issue of gay marriage. I think if the State asks me for my opinion on marriage through vote I have my right to let them know of my personal position.

I understand that you have to vote how you feel, but isn't that going against your last statement? You're essentially forcing your belief onto someone else and not letting them decide for themselves. Would it not be better to allow them the choice? And I'm not talking about families here, just marriage between a couple.

Hydroquinone · 20-03-2009 9:19pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

as for my sig.. its very true for most of the posts here too.. whats your opinion or do you not have one and rather someone else make it up for you?

My opinion - thanks for asking - is that anyone who is an adult should have the right to shag/marry whomever they like, provided the other person involved is an adult who agrees.
Pretty simple really.

As for having kids, whether by natural means, assisted conception or adoption, as long as no one ever makes it compulsory; it's all gravy.
Let those who want to do it get on with it. No skin off my nose.

philologos · 20-03-2009 9:24pm

humanji wrote: »

I understand that you have to vote how you feel, but isn't that going against your last statement? You're essentially forcing your belief onto someone else and not letting them decide for themselves. Would it not be better to allow them the choice? And I'm not talking about families here, just marriage between a couple.

I'm not really. People should have the right to define what societal rules they want to live under, I would be one voice in a group of many. I think the people need to rule on this, rather than judicial activism or we could have a messy Proposition 8 type scenario in Ireland. We need to make a universal decision as a people on this, if accepted gay marriage would become the norm in Ireland, and if rejected marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution. Seems rather fair to me that one such a big issue that the people should be asked on this. Letting the entire populace define the universal definition of marriage seems about as fair as any, people should decide what type of country they want to live in whether that is a conservative one or a liberally disposed one.

As for families. You cannot really separate marriage from family, the Constitution of the State that we currently have says that marriage is the foundation of the family so currently in that context it should be seen as such until such a point where it is legally altered. Otherwise we must consider that marriage is closely related to the family unit.

jaffa20 · 20-03-2009 9:32pm

Jakkass wrote: »

As for families. You cannot really separate marriage from family, the Constitution of the State that we currently have says that marriage is the foundation of the family so currently in that context it should be seen as such until such a point where it is legally altered. Otherwise we must consider that marriage is closely related to the family unit.

The constitution says a lot and so does the bible but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

K4t · 20-03-2009 9:44pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Just seen the thread that was closed down because the guy was obviously homphobic. No he was way out with is choice of words and use of words but i think his basic point about homophobia in ireland can still be discussed properly...

I personally think Gay ppl should never be allowed to marry. And i think the act itself is rather sick...
.

- The church will hopefully have lost all of their power by the time I die and gay people will be living happily with families. At the moment, marriage is seprate from the church and of course gay people should be allowed to marry.

- anal sex themed hetrosexual pornographic movies outsell pure vaginal sex porn movies in the US.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I also can't stand public displays of affection, and neither does my fiance, thank God.
Slobbering all over each other is never attractive for anybody else to see.

It's a free country. I'm not saying you and your husband are insecure or anything like that, but it bloody seems that way. Your attitude epitomises everything that is wrong with Ireland. People should be encouraged to express affection for others. We might have less suicides and less brawling on the streets if this was the case.

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

It's not natural. Forget about the enjoyment you have have from being in a relationship with and/or having sex with a woman or a man .... or a sheep (and whatever component act that entail), basic biological design and historical experience indicate that sticking your cock up other mans arse is a way of propagating the species is not going to work.

How do you know what is and what isn't natural may I ask?

philologos · 20-03-2009 9:48pm

jaffa20 wrote: »

The constitution says a lot and so does the bible but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Problem is that is one opinion out of a population which isn't as certain as you are about a) the validity of the Bible, and b) the Constitution. I hold both of them as reflecting very much on the reality. Looking at the Constitution has made certain decisions seem hypocritical and stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to the text itself, regardless of ones opinion, the UCC embryonic stem cell decision has violated the constitution.

The Constitution is also important as it defines key rights that people are to have within the State, and these rights are basically unable to be changed except by referendum. That's why constitutional rights are fairly rigid, and if an issue as important as marriage is to be ruled on it should definitely be by referendum as it's the most powerful definition of rights that one can have in the Irish legal system.

philologos · 20-03-2009 9:56pm

K4t wrote: »

- The church will hopefully have lost all of their power by the time I die and gay people will be living happily with families. At the moment, marriage is seprate from the church and of course gay people should be allowed to marry.

Why is it always to do with the church? Fair enough the church and the Bible may be a moral guide for Christians (both Catholics and Protestants alike), but Christians are for the most part reasonable people who will listen to any objections that you have to have. Christianity is a matter of conscience just like your atheism / agnosticism is, and yes it does guide us on issues. Why this wish of destruction of Christianity though? It is statements like these that would make anyone with faith kind of wary of supporting you when you seek for the destruction of what we believe in in this country.

I can't see the destruction of Christianity though, I've personally seen some rather encouraging things in the last while. Church attendance is still rather high, not as high as it was but a lot lot higher than in our more secular counterparts. In the Republic of Ireland church attendance is at about 48%. I think this is a natural progression that people will become dissatisfied with something, but I can see Christianity making a recovery in Ireland sooner rather than later and indeed certain churches are already making a recovery.

K4t wrote: »

- anal sex themed hetrosexual pornographic movies outsell pure vaginal sex porn movies in the US.

And? Not everyone watches porn or seeks to watch porn, it might be a surprise to some.

K4t wrote: »

It's a free country. I'm not saying you and your husband are insecure or anything like that, but it bloody seems that way. Your attitude epitomises everything that is wrong with Ireland. People should be encouraged to express affection for others. We might have less suicides and less brawling on the streets if this was the case.

Free countries do have to have restrictions on certain things though. I consider the State to have the full right to defend marriage and the family unit for the benefit of child development.

K4t wrote: »

How do you know what is and what isn't natural may I ask?

Well, one could argue from biology, but I consider it a bit of a waste to have in a discussion that is really about so much more than that.

brianthebard · 20-03-2009 9:58pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem is that is one opinion out of a population which isn't as certain as you are about a) the validity of the Bible, and b) the Constitution. I hold both of them as reflecting very much on the reality. Looking at the Constitution has made certain decisions seem hypocritical and stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to the text itself, regardless of ones opinion, the UCC embryonic stem cell decision has violated the constitution.

The Constitution is also important as it defines key rights that people are to have within the State, and these rights are basically unable to be changed except by referendum. That's why constitutional rights are fairly rigid, and if an issue as important as marriage is to be ruled on it should definitely be by referendum as it's the most powerful definition of rights that one can have in the Irish legal system.

You know the constitution can be changed right? Moreover is should be changed, often, to better reflect the views of the populace from time to time.

studiorat · 20-03-2009 10:03pm

Jakkass wrote: »

In the Republic of Ireland church attendance is at about 48%. I think this is a natural progression that people will become dissatisfied with something, but I can see Christianity making a recovery in Ireland sooner rather than later and indeed certain churches are already making a recovery.

48% of what? Christians?

20-03-2009 10:03pm

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

No problem with them as a people and have no problem with them getting married or even adopting kids. But I am sick of these liberals who go round backing them up saying things like "it's natural behavior". It's not natural. Forget about the enjoyment you have have from being in a relationship with and/or having sex with a woman or a man .... or a sheep (and whatever component act that entail), basic biological design and historical experience indicate that sticking your cock up other mans arse is a way of propagating the species is not going to work.

You realise there are many documented occurrences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, not resulting from human influence? Sure it can be regarded as natural

Gummy Panda · 20-03-2009 10:04pm

Gay people.. they can do what they want with each other. None of my business what consenting adults get up to. The only gays I hate are the ones who start thinking you're gay because you act different to them when they come out.

I worked with 2 gay lads. One was openly gay, other was more subtle. I didn't care what they got up to and didn't judge them. I'd listen to their stories of how they pulled on a saturday night like i'd listen to the straight lads. Because of this one of them spread rumours around the company i was gay. Never found out which one it was. Not a nice thing to do.

This talk about hating camp gays. Well my views are that i hate fake people who act a way to fulfill a stereotype. Stupid cnuts!!

philologos · 20-03-2009 10:05pm

brianthebard wrote: »

You know the constitution can be changed right? Moreover is should be changed, often, to better reflect the views of the populace from time to time.

As far as I know it has to be changed by referendum. I'm willing to accept correction if I am wrong. If you are suggesting that referendums should be more regular like in Switzerland, then yes I agree with you totally we should be moving more towards direct grass roots democracy. In Switzerland if you get 50,000 signatures to the Government it will call a referendum albeit only for a sample portion of the population, roughly 100,000 from different demographics in society. I personally think all should have the right to vote on referendums however.

philologos · 20-03-2009 10:14pm

studiorat wrote: »

48% of what? Christians?

I think so it's roughly along those lines.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-82220133.html

50% of Catholics in 2003.

In Northern Ireland in 2003, 34% of Protestants attended weekly, while 60% of Catholics did. Although certain Protestant sects such as the Free Presbyterians had 60% attendance considering their main territory is the Bible Belt of Ulster (near Ballymena). So in terms of attendance in general the Republic is actually faring rather well in comparison.

In Coakley and Gallaghers - Politics in the Republic of Ireland, a graph from the European Social Survey in 2002 suggests 50% of the general population go to church.

MooseJam · 20-03-2009 10:24pm

Yes let them marry - it's good for the economy, weddings cost a lot

southofnowhere · 20-03-2009 10:35pm

jaffa20 wrote: »

Seriously, any thread that stereotypes a group should be locked.

That would be some cull!

brianthebard · 20-03-2009 10:43pm

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I know it has to be changed by referendum. I'm willing to accept correction if I am wrong. If you are suggesting that referendums should be more regular like in Switzerland, then yes I agree with you totally we should be moving more towards direct grass roots democracy. In Switzerland if you get 50,000 signatures to the Government it will call a referendum albeit only for a sample portion of the population, roughly 100,000 from different demographics in society. I personally think all should have the right to vote on referendums however.

We had this type of popular referendum in the original free state constitution.

K4t · 20-03-2009 11:03pm

They won't hold a referendum because they know that the people would vote in favour of gay marriage.

dory · 20-03-2009 11:08pm

Wagon wrote: »

Single parents are okay in a lot of cases, but maybe having 2 parents of the same gender can hinder certain areas of development. I'm not sure. It's fairly tricky to call as all cases are different.

Ah c'mon now. I've no problem with single parents but I don't understand how you could find them in any way satisfactory parents if you say you're not sure about two parents of the same sex. Wouldn't they be twice as good as a single parent?

Also, Hitler's parents were heteros. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I like this thread! The OPs retro views have opened up a very gay friendly can of worms. I'd hate to see an equality issue go to Referendum, but if this sample is anything to go by the gays would be victors! Just have to hope it rains in the countryside so the country folk don't vote a la the divorce referendum of the 90s.

If someone puts this to referendum I will personally start a campaign to have a referendum as to whether single parents should be allowed to raise children. Just to point out the double standard. :rolleyes:

thebigcheese22 · 20-03-2009 11:15pm

Great - a thread bashing gays, and suprise, shock, horror its attracted xenophobic nutters! :rolleyes:

If there is a thread criticising a type of people for an innate characteristic then it should be locked. I'd love to see what the reaction would be if the OP replaced homosexual with Black or Traveller.*

* Not that there should be of course, its just all racist/xenophobic threads are magnets for looneys.

philologos · 20-03-2009 11:30pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Great - a thread bashing gays, and suprise, shock, horror its attracted xenophobic nutters! :rolleyes:

You realise xenophobic means hatred of foreigners. Also who are you referring to as nutters? Those who don't share your opinion on gay marriage?

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

If there is a thread criticising a type of people for an innate characteristic then it should be locked. I'd love to see what the reaction would be if the OP replaced homosexual with Black or Traveller.*

Nobody says that he has to be comfortable with the idea of gay sex though surely?

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

* Not that there should be of course, its just all racist/xenophobic threads are magnets for looneys.

There is no racism or xenophobia in this thread. There may be homophobia in this thread, but I don't think the OP has expressed hatred of homosexuals he merely isn't comfortable with the idea of gay sex. Then again is it really that imperative an issue that he isn't comfortable with it?

NaZionist · 20-03-2009 11:38pm

Personally I'm sick to death with homosexuality being flaunted everywhere you go. Half of them are not homosexual at all but are just too useless to cope with the interactions that a male/female relationship demands. They are failures at personal relationships and fall victim to predatory homosexuals. Yes that's what I said. Don't get your undies in a bunch. There are predtory male and female heterosexuals too so don't feel all offended. The poor bastards are so glad to have any human attention they will willingly accept any demands made of them. If they allow themselves to be used, they can make progress in a certain "society". Modern PCness demands that we treat these people as if they are perfectly normal. They are not normal. Heterosexuality is normal. It's what nature intended. If this were not so homosexuals/lesbians could breed amongst theselves and perpetuate their sub-species. They can't do that can they? They are in an eveolutionary cul-de-sac. That says it all. We should be tolerant of there needs while they survive, but they are doomed to extinction. They can't breed. They are an abherration to nature. I'm not suggesting that we pillory these people, but let's call a spade a spade, it's not normal or natural. They are sad simulcrae of real people. More to be pitied than laughed at.

Highsider · 20-03-2009 11:51pm

Sometimes you would wonder if we live in the 21st century at all with some peoples attitudes. You have to laugh really

Highsider · 20-03-2009 11:56pm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Great - a thread bashing gays, and suprise, shock, horror its attracted xenophobic nutters! :rolleyes:

If there is a thread criticising a type of people for an innate characteristic then it should be locked. I'd love to see what the reaction would be if the OP replaced homosexual with Black or Traveller.*

* Not that there should be of course, its just all racist/xenophobic threads are magnets for looneys.

That's something that i've always found funny. As soon as a thread appears from some nut laying into black people or travellers it's shut down pronto (rightfully so) but when a thread appears with gay bashing it's open season for all the headcases to mouth off...what's that all about?

dory · 21-03-2009 12:22am

NaZionist wrote: »

Personally I'm sick to death with homosexuality being flaunted everywhere you go. Half of them are not homosexual at all but are just too useless to cope with the interactions that a male/female relationship demands. They are failures at personal relationships and fall victim to predatory homosexuals. Yes that's what I said. Don't get your undies in a bunch. There are predtory male and female heterosexuals too so don't feel all offended. The poor bastards are so glad to have any human attention they will willingly accept any demands made of them. If they allow themselves to be used, they can make progress in a certain "society". Modern PCness demands that we treat these people as if they are perfectly normal. They are not normal. Heterosexuality is normal. It's what nature intended. If this were not so homosexuals/lesbians could breed amongst theselves and perpetuate their sub-species. They can't do that can they? They are in an eveolutionary cul-de-sac. That says it all. We should be tolerant of there needs while they survive, but they are doomed to extinction. They can't breed. They are an abherration to nature. I'm not suggesting that we pillory these people, but let's call a spade a spade, it's not normal or natural. They are sad simulcrae of real people. More to be pitied than laughed at.

I can't tell if you're joking or being serious, or trying to be controversial to make a point about how stupid homophobia is. But anyway....here goes....

1. Whether there are predatory homosexuals or not is not even relevant. As you said there is also predatory heteros. And black/vegitarian heteros, and homos. I really don't see your point in pointing out a trait of humankind.

2. The nature argument has already sunk on this thread. bluewolf I believe it was pointed out that there are many many animals who also practice homosexuality. Oh look, another invalid point of yours. Did you put any thought into this at all?

3. The whole extinction thing. Can you honestly think that only gay people have gay babies?? If so they would have died out centuries ago. With straight people making gay babies every single day, there won't be any dying out happening for a while.

I feel bad picking on you if that is the sum of your intellect on the matter so I will stop now. I only hope you don't make a baby yourself. Bigots raise warlords, in my opinion.

Agamemnon · 21-03-2009 12:23am

NaZionist wrote: »

Heterosexuality is normal. It's what nature intended.

This point has come up in this thread before but homosexuality exists in animals too. So according to your "logic", nature "intended" it as well.

Of course, just because something happens in nature doesn't make it right - believing otherwise is called the Naturalistic Fallacy by philosophers. But western nations have come to the conclusion that homosexuality between consenting adults harms no-one and rightly so. Your notion that many gay people are forced into it by failing at heterosexuality smells like bullshit too.

rainbow kirby · 21-03-2009 12:54am

NaZionist wrote: »

Personally I'm sick to death with homosexuality being flaunted everywhere you go. Half of them are not homosexual at all but are just too useless to cope with the interactions that a male/female relationship demands. They are failures at personal relationships and fall victim to predatory homosexuals. Yes that's what I said. Don't get your undies in a bunch. There are predtory male and female heterosexuals too so don't feel all offended. The poor bastards are so glad to have any human attention they will willingly accept any demands made of them. If they allow themselves to be used, they can make progress in a certain "society". Modern PCness demands that we treat these people as if they are perfectly normal. They are not normal. Heterosexuality is normal. It's what nature intended. If this were not so homosexuals/lesbians could breed amongst theselves and perpetuate their sub-species. They can't do that can they? They are in an eveolutionary cul-de-sac. That says it all. We should be tolerant of there needs while they survive, but they are doomed to extinction. They can't breed. They are an abherration to nature. I'm not suggesting that we pillory these people, but let's call a spade a spade, it's not normal or natural. They are sad simulcrae of real people. More to be pitied than laughed at.

*facepalm*

Gummy Panda · 21-03-2009 1:06am

rainbow kirby wrote: »

*facepalm*

Don't lie!

We all know you're a sexual predatory who uses Taekwon-do to force yourself on heterosexual girls who fail at male/female relationships

Actually no.. it is /facepalm :pac:

Valmont · 21-03-2009 1:07am

If we are talking about what's natural i.e. procreation, then your line of argument insists that men and women are only doing what's right and natural when they roger specifically for a baby. Humans are one of the few animals that engage in sex solely for its pleasurable value. Now if we take that last statement as a natural fact about humans, whether some men like willys or not is irrelevant to what nature intended blah blah blah.

Regarding marriage, I believe the social institution of marriage exists to benefit heterosexual couples (through the tax benefits of marriage) who will have children so I don't see why the gay lobby is so hell bent on getting married. Don't even think of saying that they have a right for their love to be "recognised" by the law because that isn't what marriage is about.

I don't find homosexuality sick or weird or anything and it wasn't until I was exposed to gay guys that I realised it's absolutely no big deal whatsoever.

JC 2K3 · 21-03-2009 1:11am

Do you think hetrosexual couples with no intention of having children should be allowed to get married?

MooseJam · 21-03-2009 1:11am

Valmont wrote: »

Humans are one of the few animals that engage in sex solely for its pleasurable value

I would have said most animals engage in sex for the pleasure, I don't think doggy knows he's making puppies.

philologos · 21-03-2009 1:20am

Valmont wrote: »

If we are talking about what's natural i.e. procreation, then your line of argument insists that men and women are only doing what's right and natural when they roger specifically for a baby. Humans are one of the few animals that engage in sex solely for its pleasurable value. Now if we take that last statement as a natural fact about humans, whether some men like willys or not is irrelevant to what nature intended blah blah blah.

Who says that humans only have sex for pleasurable value? Sure it's a mighty big factor but other things do come into it occasionally.

Valmont wrote: »

Regarding marriage, I believe the social institution of marriage exists to benefit heterosexual couples (through the tax benefits of marriage) who will have children so I don't see why the gay lobby is so hell bent on getting married. Don't even think of saying that they have a right for their love to be "recognised" by the law because that isn't what marriage is about.

In the legal sense perhaps that is true, they aren't taxed as much so that they can deal with beginning to think about how they should start their family in the State's eyes? Hence why marriage is seen to be a crucial part of the family idea in the Constitution?

Handsome Bob · 21-03-2009 1:21am

NaZionist wrote: »

Personally I'm sick to death with homosexuality being flaunted everywhere you go. Half of them are not homosexual at all but are just too useless to cope with the interactions that a male/female relationship demands. They are failures at personal relationships and fall victim to predatory homosexuals. Yes that's what I said. Don't get your undies in a bunch. There are predtory male and female heterosexuals too so don't feel all offended. The poor bastards are so glad to have any human attention they will willingly accept any demands made of them. If they allow themselves to be used, they can make progress in a certain "society". Modern PCness demands that we treat these people as if they are perfectly normal. They are not normal. Heterosexuality is normal. It's what nature intended. If this were not so homosexuals/lesbians could breed amongst theselves and perpetuate their sub-species. They can't do that can they? They are in an eveolutionary cul-de-sac. That says it all. We should be tolerant of there needs while they survive, but they are doomed to extinction. They can't breed. They are an abherration to nature. I'm not suggesting that we pillory these people, but let's call a spade a spade, it's not normal or natural. They are sad simulcrae of real people. More to be pitied than laughed at.

This is something I've always found strange. People who are against homosexuality always use as their most "legitimate" argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus they surely must be unnatural and wrong. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I always thought heterosexuals outnumbered homosexuals. Always. The future of the human race is guaranteed. Yet homosexuals because they aren't the norm are treated as abominations. It's not relevant that they can't breed simply because the majority always will. I find it to be a ridiculous argument against homosexuality.

Denerick · 21-03-2009 1:29am

Why is it that those people who start threads on a homophobic topic are always inarticulate? I see a pattern here...

Homophobia

Comments