Support NeoGAF

[OmniGamer]

Isn't it possible that somebody would fuck anything? Would that person be considered a homosexual because they happen to also fuck members of the same sex?

I can have sex with a woman....that doesn't make me heterosexual.

 

[akascream]

I can have sex with a woman....that doesn't make me heterosexual.

Has this argument ever really been proven though? I guess homosexuality could be a genetic mutation.. God only knows how complex we are at that level. But is there really any hard evidence?

 

[Zaptruder]

Don't you think it's important to be open minded and not spoonfed agendas?

Absolutely.

 

[Minotauro]

Here's a clue as to why you constantly get insulted, in here and the other political thread:

What you offer aren't arguments. "Homosexuals are deviants" isn't an argument, it's an assertion based on fear and ignorance rather than education and contemplation. Especially since that's the only "argument" you offer, nothing else. A one-word reply of "statistics" is likewise not an argument, it's a soft attempt at using some sort of majority-uber-alles psychology to mask what, in the absence of any elaboration of any of your points, seems like naked ignorance, ignorance you and others like you want to codify with law.

If you have science and so-called "statistics" to back up your arguments, then fine. But one-word replies and, as in the other thread, one-pic replies to complex political arguments make the problem yours and not others. You strike me as high-school age, and if you go to college making these sorts of arguments you will fail out, unless you go to Fucktard State or are, say, our president.

Quoted for emphasis.

(I love how akascream just skipped over this like it wasn't even there.)

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

All arguments and debate aside, I wonder what it is about group dynamics that causes one person to step forth as a whipping boy for "the opposing viewpoint" and for others to gang-pile him.

I don't think dialgue with akascream is going anywhere, we've already covered the standard anti-homosexual bait in just a few hours. I've certaibnly already made my mind up about him, I assume others have, too.

 

[akascream]

You will have to excuse me for not responding to everything in this thread.

What you offer aren't arguments. "Homosexuals are deviants" isn't an argument, it's an assertion based on fear and ignorance rather than education and contemplation. Especially since that's the only "argument" you offer, nothing else. A one-word reply of "statistics" is likewise not an argument, it's a soft attempt at using some sort of majority-uber-alles psychology to mask what, in the absence of any elaboration of any of your points, seems like naked ignorance, ignorance you and others like you want to codify with law.

Fear and ignorance? Perhaps you would be wise to do some research into the english language. Reading your reply you haven't really said anything but I'm wrong because I'm ignorant. Well homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Main Entry: 1de·vi·ate
Pronunciation: 'dE-vE-"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Late Latin deviatus, past participle of deviare, from Latin de- + via way -- more at WAY
intransitive senses
1 : to stray especially from a standard, principle, or topic
2 : to depart from an established course or norm

Not really that complicated dude.

If you have science and so-called "statistics" to back up your arguments, then fine. But one-word replies and, as in the other thread, one-pic replies to complex political arguments make the problem yours and not others. You strike me as high-school age, and if you go to college making these sorts of arguments you will fail out, unless you go to Fucktard State or are, say, our president.

Fucktard, nice. I'm beginning to think all I'm going to get are insults because I want to talk about the issue rather than be assimilated into the spoonfed, liberal majority.

Are you saying homosexuals aren't a minority? Do you really need me to provide you with statistics?

 

[levious]

I don't recall any big hispanic movement.

That's your own ignorance then.

 

[akascream]

IMO there are 2 gross assumptions being made here. First, that homosexuals don't have a choice. And second, that because they don't have a choice, they are the same as any minority and have rights as a group.

Has it ever been proven that homosexuality is not a choice?

That's your own ignorance then.

Sounds like it. I'd of course be interested in any information you have to offer. Still doesn't change that hispanics are born hispanic. Are we sure homosexuals are born homosexuals?

 

[Ristamar]

Wouldn't you consider somebody that has sex with animals, or with members of the same sex to be more prone to participate in other forms of unusual sexual behavior?

OK, someone notify me when people start being born with a natural, innate urge for beastiality... like, the first time a kid takes a golden retriever to his/her junior high dance or something. Really, I need to be informed of this breaking news.

 

[akascream]

OK, someone notify me when people start being born with a natural, innate urge for beastiality

And again, notify me when people start being born with natural, innate urge for homosexuality? Aren't we making a big assumption here?

 

[xsarien]

Fucktard, nice. I'm beginning to think all I'm going to get are insults because I want to talk about the issue rather than be assimilated into the spoonfed, liberal majority.

Then say something substantial, ad hominem attacks like "deviants" aren't getting you very far.

 

[maharg]

IMO there are 2 gross assumptions being made here. First, that homosexuals don't have a choice. And second, that because they don't have a choice, they are the same as any minority and have rights as a group.

You missed one. That rights are granted only on the basis of things that are not a choice. I suppose you wouldn't mind freedom of religion being removed. Clearly, since people can choose to be christian, Jews should not be allowed to marry each other without conversion.

 

[OmniGamer]

You will have to excuse me for not responding to everything in this thread.



Fear and ignorance? Perhaps you would be wise to do some research into the english language. Reading your reply you haven't really said anything but I'm wrong because I'm ignorant. Well homosexuality is deviant behavior.



Not really that complicated dude.



Fucktard, nice. I'm beginning to think all I'm going to get are insults because I want to talk about the issue rather than be assimilated into the spoonfed, liberal majority.

Are you saying homosexuals aren't a minority? Do you really need me to provide you with statistics?

First of all, re-read my post earlier "also, "unusual sexual behavior" is hardly patented by gay people. There are no kinky shops for straight people I guess right? Straight people don't have any fetishes, straight people don't participate in "deviant" sexual behavior? Do you believe these things?"

Plenty of heterosexual men and woman participate in "sexual deviant behavior"...I don't see any constitutional bans being pushed against them on those grounds.

Second, what does being a minority have to do with anything? It's ok to trample over any and everyone that's not a statistical norm? Why aren't you against other stastically "abnormal" groups?

I see 6 question marks....please answer them.

 

[akascream]

Then say something substantial, ad hominem attacks like "deviants" aren't getting you very far.

You make it sound like a bad thing to deviate from the norm. How awful of you to attack homosexuality in such a manner.

Straight people don't have any fetishes, straight people don't participate in "deviant" sexual behavior? Do you believe these things?"

Thats the thing.. I think these deviants are more prone to other unusual sexual behavior aswell, including homosexuality. You keep assuming we are born a certain sexuality, calling these individuals 'straight' or whatever.

I see 6 question marks....please answer them.

You want to start counting unanswered questions? I am not obligated to address your entire post, or your post at all. But I'm still waiting on proof that homosexuality is genetic.

 

[levious]

Sounds like it. I'd of course be interested in any information you have to offer. Still doesn't change that hispanics are born hispanic. Are we sure homosexuals are born homosexuals?

Yes, I'd be happy to get some links for you, I'll edit this post later. Hispanics are born into a culture, but it's more of choice than being of a particular race is. Hispanic knows no single race, it's a cultural distinction. One that can be left as easily as joined.

http://www.albany.edu/jmmh/vol3/chicano/chicano.html

http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/libMexAmCivilRights.php

http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~hepg/HER-BookRev/Articles/1997/3-Fall/Rosales.html

 

[DarkAngyl]

IMO there are 2 gross assumptions being made here. First, that homosexuals don't have a choice. And second, that because they don't have a choice, they are the same as any minority and have rights as a group.

Actually that second assumption that you listed isn't being made. Homosexual's aren't asking for rights as a group, they are asking for the same rights that any of us have as human beings and as Americans. Not too much to ask.

 

[akascream]

You missed one. That rights are granted only on the basis of things that are not a choice. I suppose you wouldn't mind freedom of religion being removed. Clearly, since people can choose to be christian, Jews should not be allowed to marry each other without conversion.

Thats an excellent point. But I'm not arguing homosexuals shouldn't be able to be married, in fact.. I've said otherwise.

The point I'm making is that some people really do consider homosexual behavior to be destructive to society. Specifically whether or not individuals that indulge themselves with members of the same sex are more prone to indulge themselves in other ways, such as pedophilia or beastiality.

The counter argument being that we are born a certain sexuality.

Actually that second assumption that you listed isn't being made. Homosexual's aren't asking for rights as a group, they are asking for the same rights that any of us have as human beings and as Americans. Not too much to ask.

Certainly reasonable. I guess I just get annoyed with the parades ect, that I'm expected to respect homosexuals. I have no problem with them having rights.

 

[OmniGamer]

And again, notify me when people start being born with natural, innate urge for homosexuality? Aren't we making a big assumption here?

And you're not making an assumption that homosexuality is a choice? Prove it's a choice....prove that you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex(if that is the case, I won't assume).

Your "argument" such as it were is that deviations from statistical norms are choices. My argument is based on my own PERSONAL life...who are you to tell me what is or isn't a choice of mine. What first-hand, personal, experience do you have on the matter?

It's not normal....ok, neither is exeptional intelligence or physical prowress, both of which have certain genetic components to them.

What grounds are you standing on exactly?

 

[Dilbert]

IMO there are 2 gross assumptions being made here. First, that homosexuals don't have a choice. And second, that because they don't have a choice, they are the same as any minority and have rights as a group.

Has it ever been proven that homosexuality is not a choice?

Dude, you're veering dangerously into the territory of "trying to provoke a shitstorm just for the sake of watching all hell break loose." If not, then are setting records for being accidentally inflamatory.

The "has it ever been proven that homosexuality is not a choice?" argument is a non-starter. For one thing, turn it around: Has is ever been proven that homosexuality IS a choice? You have about the same chance -- zero -- of producing evidence. The main reason for this is that it is NOT a Boolean situation. With most human characteristics, there is some complex interaction between nature and nurture which we don't completely understand. There are very few single phenotypes which depend on one or two genes -- the rest allow for a range of outcomes based on environment and choices.

As an example, you are born with some potential for height, but there are a lot of choices you make along the way which determine where you actually end up. Likewise, I strongly suspect that there is probably some genetic component in EVERYONE which gives you an inclination towards homosexuality. Depending on the amount of this influence, and environment/choices, you end up lumped into the grossly described buckets of being "straight," "gay," or "bisexual." The truth is probably far more complex -- "straight" guys who have had fantasies or one-off encounters with the same sex, "gay" women who occasionally sleep with men for companionship, and so on.

So, as long as you keep insisting that this is an either/or situation, you're completely missing the point.

Second, and more importantly, whether or not homosexuality is a choice has NOTHING TO DO with protecting their rights. There are a lot of protected groups in this country which owe nothing to any kind of genetic component. For example, you cannot discriminate against someone based on religious preference, and there is no way in hell that you can show that people are "born Christian" or "born Buddhist."

The measure of any society is how well it protects the rights of its minorities, and the United States hasn't done a perfect job over its history. How many times do we have to go through these struggles until we finally "get it?"

 

[Zaptruder]

You want to start counting unanswered questions? I am not obligated to address your entire post, or your post at all. But I'm still waiting on proof that homosexuality is genetic.

I'm not sure what kind of proof you want, but there's plenty of strong evidence for a genetical predisposition for homosexuality throughout the ENTIRE thread; starting from the very first post.

To ask why it isn't 100% is to ignore that homosexuality isn't some kind of ON/OFF switch (and the general complexity of the issue); sure there's abstinence - but if you hold homosexuals to that standard, then you must apply it to EVERYONE as well. And if you do that, then there's a whole different set of issues with it.

As for your thoughts... what you're saying is anyone predisposed to any sexual deviancy is more likely to be predisposed to any sexual deviancy. That would be an acceptable thought, if homosexuality could be shown to be a deviancy, rather than something that's relatively natural to a person: as having a certain amount of disposition for generating melanin content in your skin is.

As for answering people's questions, it doesn't serve you to answer only selective parts of a question; doesn't help you understand or properly grapple an arguement. If you deal with the gist of an argument, that's fine. But if you're selectively ignoring statements for the benefit of arguging points out of context... and can't see a problem in that, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help.

 

[Rocket Punch]

For some people, to be able to realize and understand the nature of homosexuality they will need to experience it first hand so to speak, they closest of which is, dealing with one of their children being gay. Then and only then, will they be able to open themselves to the reasons. And eventually realize that they are not important. Because this gay child is first and foremost a person that they love unconditionally. And they never did anything specific to be made this way.

 

[Nerevar]

The point I'm making is that some people really do consider homosexual behavior to be destructive to society. Specifically whether or not individuals that indulge themselves with members of the same sex are more prone to indulge themselves in other ways, such as pedophilia or beastiality.

You keep bringing this up, but it also consistently stands at odds with your other major point (homosexual is statistically abnormal behavior). If you want anyone to take you seriously, back this up with statistics. I'm guessing you can't. Because they don't exist. And by equating homosexuality with pedophelia and bestiality, you're inviting the ad hominem attacks you received. You're own behaviors are just as destructive to any coherent argument as the people attacking you, not because "those dumb libs are repeating their spoonfed liberal-media biases" or whatever other straw-man argument you want to point to.

Certainly reasonable. I guess I just get annoyed with the parades ect, that I'm expected to respect homosexuals. I have no problem with them having rights.

Oh, that's great. You're happy with giving gay people rights, just don't expect them to get any respect? I wonder if you have the same attitude about racial and ethnic minorities too.

 

[akascream]

Not ignoring the responses just made, I'm heading off to lunch for an hour or so.. bbl.

 

[Pepperman]

The thing is, marriage is not an inherently religious institution, and it certainly isn’t an inherently Christian institution. People of all faiths, and those without faith have been getting married for centuries. You are not required to have a religious ceremony to get married, but you are (at least in the US) required to register at the court house to get married. Marriage is a government sponsored institution that grants certain rights and privileges to those joined by in that union. Who are we, as Christians, to take those rights away from people because we disagree with, or don’t like their lifestyle?

If you don’t want gays in your church, or don’t want them to marry in your church, that is fine. That is your right. It is not your right to say they can’t attend, or can’t marry in the church down the road. Or in a synagogue, or a mosque, or in front of the Justice of the Peace, or hell even in Vegas. It is not your right to say they cannot have the same rights that you have. Which is why as a Christian I felt it was my duty to vote against that amendment. I don’t understand why we as a group feel we can take these rights away from people and think that it is God’s will. It makes no sense to me.

Love is love is love. If a man loves another man, I may not understand it, but it doesn’t change what it is. If they want to marry and spend the rest of their lives together, more power to them! Marriage is a beautiful thing and should not be hoarded and kept away from those that we deem different. If you want to sit back and say that a gay marriage isn’t recognized by the church or by God, well that is your right. You shouldn’t be able to say that it cannot be recognized by the government. That’s discrimination and should not happen in this day and age.

Second, and more importantly, whether or not homosexuality is a choice has NOTHING TO DO with protecting their rights. There are a lot of protected groups in this country which owe nothing to any kind of genetic component. For example, you cannot discriminate against someone based on religious preference, and there is no way in hell that you can show that people are "born Christian" or "born Buddhist."

A-fucking-MEN to that, brothers.

Here's a little reading for those of you who still can't get past the concept of marriage as more than just a religious institution, and therefore cannot understand why it is important that a gay union be recognized as legal and binding in society by the government: http://www.equalmarriage.org/aboutmarr.php

 

[OmniGamer]

Which begs the question, why wouldn't you respect a homosexual person? I'd like to know what is the criteria for receiving your respect, and how a homosexual person, based solely on the fact that he/she is homosexual, conflicts with that in any rational way, and do you ask for someone's sexual orientation upon first meeting them so as to ascertain the validity of their worthiness of your respect.

 

[maharg]

I think most of us are actually willing to take it on the balance of probability that homosexual behaviour is a minority. However, I don't think anyone is willing to accept your correlation between homosexuals and pedophiles on faith alone. If any statistic you've identified needs backing up, it's that one.

A lot of us have a problem with this argument because it means denying people one right that seems perfectly reasonable (two consenting adults) for the sake of 'preventing' one that is not (one party is not considered able to consent). This seems something like banning freedom of association so people can't plan to blow up government buildings. In a free society, we should draw the line where it belongs, at the point where it harms people.

 

[Gorey]

The measure of any society is how well it protects the rights of its minorities, and the United States hasn't done a perfect job over its history. How many times do we have to go through these struggles until we finally "get it?"

Nicely put. Can't add much beyond this that isn't just restating it.

 

[gofreak]

I'm really kind of ignoring most of the posts here. All I'll say is, I'm 100% sure I was either a) born gay, or b) had my sexuality programmed at an exceptionally early age. Like at 1 or 2, before I had any concept of what sexuality was. Either way, it certainly was not a choice. If I had a choice, I would gladly be heterosexual. I've struggled with my sexuality all my life, and continue to to this day. Don't tell me it's a choice. I'm proof it's not, as are 99% of gay people out there.

Explain to me how I *really* liked He-Man as a 3 year old kid when I had absolutely no understanding or concept of what sex was? That might seem funny, but it is the truth, and the first sexual memory I have. I didn't know what I was feeling was sexual at the time, but in hindsight it was. How could that be if it wasn't something determined pre-birth or very shortly after birth? I can trace this right through my childhood. I didn't realise at the time that I was gay, but I definitely was. And what a horrid day it was when I discovered what "gay" was, and how unacceptable it was. Cue 10+ years of exceptional, verging on suicidal struggle. You have no idea what it's like. Stop telling me what I am isn't natural, or was something I chose - it is an insult of the highest order.

If I *chose* to be homosexual, then that suggests that at one point I was heterosexual, right? If that's the case, then I still am heterosexual. But somehow I'm just suppressing all that and generating a different kind of sexuality? How? How the fuck does that work? It doesn't. Nature didn't leave sexuality up to chance or choice. It has to be something preprogrammed. If it wasn't, it'd place the survival of the species in question. Sexuality is an something innate and primal which you have no control over.

Finally, why do I have to prove anything to you in order to receive equal treatment? You don't have to prove anything, why should I? I'm sick of justifiying my sexuality to both myself and to others. I'm sick of it.

 

[way more]

Those looking for an easy answer of what causes homosexuality will not find it, sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genitic, hormonal, evironmental, and cognitive factors.

And I'm pretty damn sure most pedophiles are hetrosexual, they just view pedophilia as more pure.

 

[akascream]

If you want anyone to take you seriously, back this up with statistics. I'm guessing you can't. Because they don't exist.

How can anyone take the opposing side of this argument seriously without statistics then? If we don't have numbers, sexual deviancy isn't destructive behavior?


Oh, and to the person that said homosexuals don't expect special treatment. How about we use the religious comparison made earlier. On this forum, religion is made fun of from every angle, with a venom unmatched. But if I were to say to all the homosexuals in this thread: "HEY, YOU ARE ALL SEXUALLY DEVIANT, POOP DICKED FAGGOTS", I'd be banned. How is that not expecting special treatment?

 

[gofreak]

How can anyone take the opposing side of this argument seriously without statistics then? If we don't have numbers, sexual deviancy isn't destructive behavior?


Oh, and to the person that said homosexuals don't expect special treatment. How about we use the religious comparison made earlier. On this forum, religion is made fun of from every angle, with a venom unmatched. But if I were to say to all the homosexuals in this thread: "HEY, YOU ARE ALL SEXUALLY DEVIANT, POOP DICKED FAGGOTS", I'd be banned. How is that not expecting special treatment?

You can control your religion, it's not an innate part of your being, there is no equivalent to "faggot", people are being beat up and killed over their sexuality, not because their right-wing christian (as far as i know?) etc. etc. It's not equivalent. And people don't make fun of religion here, at least I don't. A lot of people are critical of it and its influence of civil society.

 

[levious]

you already said they are deviant, and you're not banned. Do you turn a blind eye to those that have been banned for flaming religion outside the context of rational debate. It happens... remember the xtian guy?

But yeah, whether being gay is a choice is irrelevent. There's been evidence that some people are more genetically predisposed to psychotic behavior, yet that does not change the fact that the act is not accepted in our society. The supreme court however, has already made a statment on the unconstitionality of anti-sodomy laws. In my mind, the case has been closed... what's left is intolerance.

 

[akascream]

You can control your religion, it's not an innate part of your being

Are you saying you can't control your urge to be sexually deviant? If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children. Could we lock you up because you were an uncurable danger to others?

It happens... remember the xtian guy?

One guy? How about every person that ever uttered the word faggot?

 

[maharg]

If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children. Could we lock you up because you were an uncurable danger to others?

The problem is, neither has been, to my knowledge, proven. If it has, please linkorize it. Surely if this was the case, it would not be hard to find. If it hasn't been proven, does that mean your whole argument falls apart? Because this seems to be your primary foundation.

 

[akascream]

The problem is, neither has been, to my knowledge, proven. If it has, please linkorize it. Surely if this was the case, it would not be hard to find. If it hasn't been proven, does that mean your whole argument falls apart? Because this seems to be your primary foundation.

Except it isn't my argument. Not that a lack of scientific data has stopped anyone from claiming that homosexuality is an uncontrolable, even genetic, urge.

 

[demon]

Are you saying you can't control your urge to be sexually deviant? If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children. Could we lock you up because you were an uncurable danger to others?



One guy? How about every person that ever uttered the word faggot?

Jesus you're a bigoted idiot.

What the hell is the "urge" to be sexually deviant you're talking about? Sexual orientation is what sex you're sexually attracted to, nothing else. So please, just try to make an argument that you have any conscious control over who you're sexually attracted to. It's the most fucking ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[maharg]

So in other words, you're saying your argument (and make no mistake, you have advanced it as a serious possibility at this point -- if it was a curiosity you would not be bringing it up every other post) holds as much weight as theirs, and you have stated many times that you don't buy theirs so why do you expect this one to hold any weight with anyone else?

Either it's not valid, so please stop bringing it up (as it's insulting -- at least gay people have personal experience to back up their claims), or you feel it holds some validity so stop being a chicken and claim it as your own and back it up with reasoned arguments.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Are you saying you can't control your urge to be sexually deviant? If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children.

Again with the reductios ad absurdum. On what do you base this argument? Is it just a "what if?" "What if" I viewed the sexual molestation of children by priests as evidence Christianity endorses pedophilia? Would that somehow be any rational basis for any discussion of the right to free expression of religion?

 

[akascream]

so stop being a chicken and claim it as your own and back it up with reasoned arguments.

And be banned. Lets at least be honest about what opinions are valid at GA, and those which aren't.

So please, just try to make an argument that you have any conscious control over who you're sexually attracted to.

There are many individuals that get psychological help for thier urges. You just don't hear about them because they don't have parades.

 

[Dilbert]

Are you saying you can't control your urge to be sexually deviant? If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children. Could we lock you up because you were an uncurable danger to others?

Look -- people are REALLY trying to be civil in this thread, but this line of "questioning" is extremely close to the line. Without evidence, you are raising one hell of a strawman...and quite frankly, I suspect that your question is meant to be rhetorical so you get to say absolutely outrageous things under a "protected" guise. I'm not going to stand for that.

To put it more simply: If I ask someone, "If it could be proven that Bush was part of a vast conspiracy by the extreme right wing to create a Christian, fascist empire with the purpose of starting a modern-day Crusade against all Muslims, would you have voted for him?" chances are VERY good that I asked that unanswerable question only to vent that point of view, and I'm hiding behind the "if it could be proven" clause, knowing full well that there is no proof out there. It's a well-known technique in so-called "push polling," and it's disgusting.

Either start proving some of these outrageous claims, or knock it off.

 

[maharg]

And be banned. Lets at least be honest about what opinions are valid at GA, and those which aren't.

I think you're more likely to be banned playing this game of chicken with that argument than you are if you can actually back it up with something. The very first post in this thread includes the results of a study that indicates genetic predisposition (through observation only) towards homosexual tendancies.

At this point, it looks like you're trolling. I know we don't agree on a lot aka, but please either let that argument rest or back it up with something. Hinting at it like this is not a reasonable way to avoid a ban.

 

[akascream]

Either start proving some of these outrageous claims, or knock it off.

This is a two way street.

I think you're more likely to be banned playing this game of chicken with that argument than you are if you can actually back it up with something.

Is this some kind of a threat? Whats wrong with debating the issue instead of making everything personal anyway.

 

[gofreak]

Are you saying you can't control your urge to be sexually deviant? If this is indeed the case, and it can be proven that homosexuals are a danger, be it through the spread of AIDS, or the molestation of children. Could we lock you up because you were an uncurable danger to others?



One guy? How about every person that ever uttered the word faggot?

I can be celibate if I wish to be. But I have no obligation to do so. I can be as celibate as you. Why should you have to be celibate? You shouldn't have to be, and neither should I. What if someone asked you to not act on your sexual attraction? How would you feel? I can control my actions based on my sexual attraction, but I cannot control my sexual attraction. When you toss out the word "faggot" you are insulting and degrading anyone who is sexually attracted to their own gender, regardless of their actions.

I don't have AIDs. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with molestation of children. I feel utterly offended right now. Actually I don't know whether to feel offended or confused. Of course if I ever molested a child you could lock me up. But ditto for you and anyone else here.

 

[shoplifter]

This is a two way street.

Statistics were provided. You ignore them. Come up with some of your own if you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Dilbert]

And be banned. Lets at least be honest about what opinions are valid at GA, and those which aren't.

The opinions you are going to get banned for are the ones for which you provide no evidence for, especially after spending so much time dogging everyone else for "lack of evidence."

 

[akascream]

I feel utterly offended right now.

Maybe the religious members of this board should throw some parades.

 

[demon]

And be banned. Lets at least be honest about what opinions are valid at GA, and those which aren't.



There are many individuals that get psychological help for thier urges. You just don't hear about them because they don't have parades.

What IS it with you people on this board using that as a cop-out to not providing any kind of reasoning or argument? It's exactly the morons who can't back up their opinions and instead keep spewing out the same outrageous claim over and over again who get banned.

 

[akascream]

What IS it with you people on this board using that as a cop-out to not providing any kind of reasoning or argument?

Like those calling names.. ignorant, bigot, ect.. rather than providing any kind of reasoning or argument?

 

[shoplifter]

^^^

Maybe the religious members of this board should throw some parades.

They happen every Sunday. Also last tuesday they happened in 11 states.

 

[gofreak]

Maybe the religious members of this board should throw some parades.

They do it every weekend in my local church, and I attend. It's good. Feel free to join us sometime.