Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Brawl at Gay Pride Fest in Seattle , God Squad at it Again

1456810

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    krudler wrote: »
    It's the last bastion of bad arguments. someone already mentioned homosexuality in the same sentence as necrophilia and bestiality in this thread, cos they're all the same thing :rolleyes:


    Ah right. Have we had the paedophilia argument yet? then there's the "threat to the sanctity of marriage" (my personal fave, hope I didnt miss it!). :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    nucker wrote: »
    Correct on all statements, some of the crass on this site is unbelievable to say that being gay isn't a choice. I mean its blindingly obvious its a choice, yet they questioned me as to whether I chose not to be gay, of course I did choose not to be gay, that is why I'm not gay.

    Blindingly obvious in what way? can you back up your bullsh1t statements or are you just gonna run away from any debate brought to you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    What? That doesn't even make any sense.

    Im in love with my refrigerator. Yes I think I should marry it. And then have annual parades about it.

    Ok. If you can get your fridge to sign the marriage cert fire ahead.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    krudler wrote: »
    Blindingly obvious in what way? can you back up your bullsh1t statements or are you just gonna run away from any debate brought to you?

    Stop feeding him. Eventually he'll curl up under the bridge and die.

    Or else's he's just really really stupid, but I think it's more likely that he's just trolling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,593 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    nucker wrote: »
    Correct on all statements, some of the crass on this site is unbelievable to say that being gay isn't a choice. I mean its blindingly obvious its a choice, yet they questioned me as to whether I chose not to be gay, of course I did choose not to be gay, that is why I'm not gay.

    Maybe you really mean that you chose NOT to partake in homosexual prectices. Well that's a choice which, surprising as it might seem to you - as you're straight -, that a lot of Ho's also engage in.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    krudler wrote: »
    Blindingly obvious in what way? can you back up your bullsh1t statements or are you just gonna run away from any debate brought to you?

    I think straight people like claiming the choice element. "Oh look at me, I'm so wonderful, I chose to be straight. Aren't I smart? Dont I like totally make all the right choices?"

    The "choice" argument has a two fold effect from what I can see. It makes those claiming it feel like they have achieved something, and allows them to judge others for making the "wrong" choice. When the reality is, we are just born the way we are. I mean, why would anyone choose to be gay and have to come on here and defend themselves?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭nucker


    krudler wrote: »
    Blindingly obvious in what way? can you back up your bullsh1t statements or are you just gonna run away from any debate brought to you?

    If it isn't obvious to you by now, what can I say? I mean, you are just now using bad language? Have I used bad language to any of my arguments?

    floggg wrote: »
    Stop feeding him. Eventually he'll curl up under the bridge and die.

    Or else's he's just really really stupid, but I think it's more likely that he's just trolling.


    Whoa, perhaps we should do the same to you :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭nucker


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I think straight people like claiming the choice element. "Oh look at me, I'm so wonderful, I chose to be straight. Aren't I smart? Dont I like totally make all the right choices?"

    The "choice" argument has a two fold effect from what I can see. It makes those claiming it feel like they have achieved something, and allows them to judge others for making the "wrong" choice. When the reality is, we are just born the way we are. I mean, why would anyone choose to be gay and have to come on here and defend themselves?


    You know there are straight people who believe that gay isn't a choice, just want to make you know that in case you didn't


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    nucker wrote: »
    If it isn't obvious to you by now, what can I say?


    So no, you can't back up your bullsh1t trolling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Cynthia Nixon publicly said her lesbian relationship was a choice

    She said she choose to be in a relationship with a woman but her bisexuality wasn't a choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I think straight people like claiming the choice element. "Oh look at me, I'm so wonderful, I chose to be straight. Aren't I smart? Dont I like totally make all the right choices?"

    The "choice" argument has a two fold effect from what I can see. It makes those claiming it feel like they have achieved something, and allows them to judge others for making the "wrong" choice. When the reality is, we are just born the way we are. I mean, why would anyone choose to be gay and have to come on here and defend themselves?

    No I'm sure every gay person is just doing it for the laugh, sure it must be great craic having people look down on your and tell you you're not equal when it comes to aspects of life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I think straight people like claiming the choice element. "Oh look at me, I'm so wonderful, I chose to be straight. Aren't I smart? Dont I like totally make all the right choices?"

    The "choice" argument has a two fold effect from what I can see. It makes those claiming it feel like they have achieved something, and allows them to judge others for making the "wrong" choice. When the reality is, we are just born the way we are. I mean, why would anyone choose to be gay and have to come on here and defend themselves?

    I think the choice thing is a silly red herring.

    Even if I did choose to be gay (I didn't) what right would it give anybody to discriminate against me or treat me differently because of the relationships I choose to enter.

    In the absence of any objectively justifiable reason to interfere, every person should be allowed freely live there lives without interference and to enter consensual relationships.

    I've yet to see an objectively justifiable reason for bigotry against homosexuals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭nucker


    krudler wrote: »
    So no, you can't back up your bullsh1t trolling.


    Oh gosh, now you're accusing me of trolling, sad, really sad


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    1ZRed wrote: »
    This is completely wrong. Homophobia is not deep rooted in our genetics at all. In fact, there were huge benefits to having homosexual as part of the group as there were more people to protect the group, gather resources and raise children had one or both of the parents been killed off (which would've been common) couple that with the fact that the gay memebers wouldn't be bogged down with their own children so they could devote themselves to the group, thus making it stronger.

    The idea that homosexuality is wrong is a testament to the massive influence Christianity and other organised religions had on society. Before Christianity in what you might consider "barbaric Ireland", there were many legal structures in place and even there were accounts of same-sex marriage. It wasn't an issue at all back then at all. Neither was it in Ancient Rome, Greece, or in Aztec or Incan society either. They were advanced civilisations at the time and saw nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.

    When organised religions like Christianity came to rise they viewed homosexuality as immoral because that meant they wouldn't be getting new recruits from those people, so for the sake of rapid expansion that all had to stop.

    At the root of it, Christianity wanted nothing more but extreme power, influence and the money that came with it. It didn't matter if that ended up in war, genocide or massive oppression, that's all they wanted -supreme power.

    There's nothing wrong with sex, it's not a dirty, immoral or sinful thing, and we don't listen to the church on those matters, so why should we listen to them when they say contraception is immoral as well as homosexuality? Thankfully we're listening to the church less and less and it's loosing it's oppressive grip, as it should. More damage and war has come about from religion than anything else on Earth. The deep rooted prejudices to things as natural and enjoyable as sex are only the biggest testament to that oppression.

    My point is that all this aggression toward homosexuality is the direct result of a harsh religious influence because there was no hostility towards homosexuality before the dawn of organised religion. It's not rooted in our DNA at all, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. We are the product of our society's values, and those values were deeply shaped by religion.
    Once we move away from that we will start to see homosexuality for what it it, just a differing sexuality. We won't see anything being wrong with it because no religion will be telling us there is, because logically, there's is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

    Bacteria only reproduces asexually. Your point is moot.


    You're not doing a good job because you assume homophobia is genetic and can't be helped, no more than homosexuality. That's a cop out, it's learned from your surroundings.

    I grew up thinking homosexuality was sick, and what do you know? I grew up believing that as well. It's complete laziness to assume homophobia is what it is and that's it.
    If anything needs to be stamped out it's homophobia, not homsexuality.

    Completely wrong is a bold statement, how does having homosexuality make the group bigger? Logic would say that homosexuality would make the group smaller? Anyway the simple fact is that evolution has made us and all animals 99%+ straight, you can take this as a coincidence or irrelevant but I simply accept we have evolved to maximise our chances of survival and that means being gay will always be a deviation from the norm, does it not make sense that if the majority became gay that would wipe our species out?

    You also want to make it about religion but that is incredibly recent history, our preference for man/woman relationships pre dates this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    floggg wrote: »
    Ok. If you can get your fridge to sign the marriage cert fire ahead.

    But what happens if other people see the marriage and decide they want to marry fridges too? Fridge should just be left alone! This is a threat to the sanctity of electrical appliances everywhere. Pretty soon ice boxes in fridges all over will be iced up with appliance-related STI's and then they'll start lurking around creches hoping to snatch some children. Fridges might even start to fancy their sibling fridges or their pet toasters.

    Soon, everyone will want to marry their applicances :eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    nucker wrote: »
    You know there are straight people who believe that gay isn't a choice, just want to make you know that in case you didn't
    Yes. I was referring to those who claim as per above. Sorry thought that was obvious from the context.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    nucker wrote: »
    Correct on all statements, some of the crass on this site is unbelievable to say that being gay isn't a choice. I mean its blindingly obvious its a choice, yet they questioned me as to whether I chose not to be gay, of course I did choose not to be gay, that is why I'm not gay.

    Okay, let's see. Why would a person make the choice to be gay? Can you answer that for me. The clothes? The ability to be able to use moisturiser?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    nucker wrote: »
    Oh gosh, now you're accusing me of trolling, sad, really sad

    Until you can back up your bullsh1t, yup. Explain to us how is "blindingly obvious" that being gay is a choice and I'll agree with you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    What difference does it make whether its a choice or not?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Looked at some of the video in the OP.

    Looks like what it was, two small groups of opinionated people with not enough self control to not let things get out of hand.

    Reminds me of this clip - opposing protests in Texas (I think at their Senate building) regarding abortion legislation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XENUuwKP8

    One group is singing Amazing Grace and some members of the opposing protest decide it'd be great to start chanting "Hail Satan". Idiots.

    These just prove that no side has a monopoly on ignorance, stupidity and immaturity.

    Apparently, the UK Church of Satan has distanced itself from them though -

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100225097/church-of-satan-distances-itself-from-pro-abortion-activists-chanting-hail-satan-turns-out-satan-is-prolife/


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    1ZRed wrote: »
    Then why don't other animals hate homosexuality just as much?

    They do, some animals practice homosexuality, it is still unknown if this is for pleasure or a dominance display but the simple fact is that the vast majority of animals share our 99%+ straight ratio, many species have zero documented homosexuality. I am surprised you thought bringing the animal Kingdom into it would support your case over mine?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭nucker


    floggg wrote: »
    I think the choice thing is a silly red herring.

    Even if I did choose to be gay (I didn't) what right would it give anybody to discriminate against me or treat me differently because of the relationships I choose to enter.

    In the absence of any objectively justifiable reason to interfere, every person should be allowed freely live there lives without interference and to enter consensual relationships.

    I've yet to see an objectively justifiable reason for bigotry against homosexuals.


    Who said that I was discriminating against you? I for one have read the bible where it says "those without sin cast the first stone". I live by those principles, but I don't believe that being gay is not a choice, there is no evidence to support this. What we do in our lives is all a choice, albeit, as a child we are brought up by society's constraint on people


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Looked at some of the video in the OP.

    Looks like what it was, two small groups of opinionated people with not enough self control to not let things get out of hand.

    Reminds me of this clip - opposing protests in Texas (I think at their Senate building) regarding abortion legislation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XENUuwKP8

    One group is singing Amazing Grace and some members of the opposing protest decide it'd be great to start chanting "Hail Satan". Idiots.

    These just prove that no side has a monopoly on ignorance, stupidity and immaturity.

    Apparently, the UK Church of Satan has distanced itself from them though -

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100225097/church-of-satan-distances-itself-from-pro-abortion-activists-chanting-hail-satan-turns-out-satan-is-prolife/

    This has been an ongoing conflict. Back in the 90s Act UP went into ST PATS cathedral in NYC took the Eucharistic and the spat them all over the floor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    What difference does it make whether its a choice or not?

    Well its not nice to be a certain way inherently, with something that is as much a part of you and your identity as your skin colour, and be told that you chose to be that way, especially when being that way tends to lead one on a more diffiuclt path, the obvious implication being you chose it so put up with it (or choose to be another way, since that option is within your reach).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 790 ✭✭✭nucker


    krudler wrote: »
    Until you can back up your bullsh1t, yup. Explain to us how is "blindingly obvious" that being gay is a choice and I'll agree with you.


    I have backed it up, you've just chose not to listen or view in a way that I've backed up my point. Its no point saying I'm talking BS, because you are in my POV talking BS


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    This has been an ongoing conflict. Back in the 90s Act UP went into ST PATS cathedral in NYC took the Eucharistic and the spat them all over the floor.

    I can recall hearing about that. That's a hate crime right there. No excuse.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Everyone here is banging on about free speech and sh!t like that but it's clear in America that the message depends on whether you're free to express it or not and also determines the response of the police. If anti-war activists showed up to a veteran's parade they'd most likely get punched up (not by the veterans but by chickenhawk armchair warriors who've never faced an angry shot). The police would probably not do much by way of arresting anyone in that case.
    Likewise if you protest the government's abuse and corruption (Occupy) then the police are going to beat you off the street as they've been ordered to by the corporation-run govt.

    If you're free to demonstrate against the government at say the RNC or DNC but are kettled into "free-speech zones" then why aren't the god-squad **** also confined to a free-speech zone half a mile down the street by the police?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    tajd wrote: »
    apparently we all need to be saved from

    1. Homosexuality
    2. Materialism
    3. Pornography
    4. Drugs
    5. Rock Music
    6. Drunkeness
    7. Tv Worship

    That's just so wrong. There's nothing on tele anymore.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    gallag wrote: »
    Completely wrong is a bold statement, how does having homosexuality make the group bigger? Logic would say that homosexuality would make the group smaller? Anyway the simple fact is that evolution has made us and all animals 99%+ straight, you can take this as a coincidence or irrelevant but I simply accept we have evolved to maximise our chances of survival and that means being gay will always be a deviation from the norm, does it not make sense that if the majority became gay that would wipe our species out?

    I never said it makes the group bigger, I said it makes it stronger. More food being gathered by people who will not reproduce and having extra people looking after the next generation means that they have a higher likelyhood of surviving. That maximised our chances of survival, as you said.

    I don't think you understand, but the % of people who are homosexual has always been the same and never will change. More of the group can't just "become gay", so how on earth would that wipe out the species? The 90% or so of straight people will always be and will always be reproducing. That's not going to change.

    The actuall fact is, having a few gay members meant that the chances of survival were higher because they would consume less resources by not having their own families and had more time to hunt, look after and contribute to the group. Thus making it stronger. There's a reason homosexuality arouse and it had it's benefit to our survival.

    99%+ animals are not straight. Humans are 90% straight actually, and animals like the bonobo, which is an ape -same as us on the eveloutionary tree, is exclusively bisexual. Everything from conflict to excitement is delt with by having sex for that species and it has given them an advantage in that it avoids conflict when food is not plentiful and keeps order.
    Tell me so how that contradicts survival?
    You also want to make it about religion but that is incredibly recent history, our preference for man/woman relationships pre dates this.
    It is a recent development that homosexulity is viewed negatively, but you seem to think I'm talking as if everyone was gay back then. I'm not, most people were straight, just as they are now, and some were gay. The difference being is that 10 or so % were not looked down on or discriminated against at all.

    Homosexuality as been shown to be around just as long as straight attraction has been too. Straight people kept on reproducing and didn't care if gay people paired up. When you're trying to survive you don't care about things that don't effect you. And if it's only 10% of the population that won't reproduce, but still aid the group the population is not going to plummet. If anything I've shown it can give an advantage to that group and the straight people can benefit from it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    gallag wrote: »
    Completely wrong is a bold statement, how does having homosexuality make the group bigger? Logic would say that homosexuality would make the group smaller?

    Not if you think about it.

    There are two "strategies" for a species to secure its own survival.

    a) Breed as much as possible, and then forget about them. Spawn enough young that some of them have to survive. See - fish, insects, etc.

    or

    b) Have fewer young, and invest more in them.

    Humans wound up with b). We aren't faster or stronger than other species, our edge is that we're social and co-operative. In that case, it would be a very bad thing to have every member of the "tribe" geared the same way and doing the same thing, it makes the whole group far too specialised and vulnerable to the same weaknesses.

    Having and raising a single human child requires a massive investment of effort and resources from the parent, rendering them physically vulnerable for a long, long time until that child is mature enough to take care of themselves or reproduce. In other words, having everybody simply churning out babies all the time makes the whole society weak. Because we don't have kids fast enough for that strategy to be effective if nobody's taking care of them. Meanwhile the crops aren't getting harvested, the settlement is going unguarded etc etc.

    Humans have one of the longest maturity cycles in nature, the society surrounding our offspring is an unusually significant factor in their survival - if the society fails, starves, etc your child is unlikely to make it to their teens anyway, and all the serious physical risks the mother took in childbirth and the investment the father put in rearing goes to waste.

    So you have it in your head that it has to be all straight or all gay, but that's not what the theory proposes. The theory proposes that the group as a whole, extant children included, benefits from having serving adults with close pair bonds who are not, themselves, having children, while other adults are.


Advertisement
Advertisement