ORIGINAL: Nitro

And you judge homosexuals.

No, I don' t. As I' ve said this entire damn thread, I' m not okay with the act of gay sex. I don' t judge the people. Obviously you can' t read.

You judge the acts they commit. It' s them commiting them, so you' re judging them.

I understand that you are uncomfortable with the act of anal sex, but it' s everything else i don' t get. Why is it wrong to have same sex sex?

You judge the acts they commit. It' s them commiting them, so you' re judging them.

No, judging an act isn' t judging a person.

You' ve already crossed the line and have been reported. I have nothing more to say to you or in this thread. I' m sorry you were incapable of an educated non-hateful debate.

Every creature has instinctive enemies, it is our instinct to despise faggots, no matter how much you try to spin it.

People who DON' T hate homosexuals are the ones that have been CONDITIONED to tolerate a natural enemy.

" I still disagree with most of what you wrote in your message, especially your claim of distortions of the brain being labeled as a specific reason for sexual orientation."

You do realize that hormones have a role in the development of the brain? There is a difference between the male and female brain. No one is the perfect male or perfect female, everyone is on a continuum. That doesn' t mean certain people who aren' t perfect are wrong it just means they' re human. Homosexuality is very complex and I doubt there is one clear explanation for it. It' s not black and white. Most likely it' s a mixture of many things. I believe it' s part genetic and part environmental. Being sexually abused at a young age for example can change your sexuality. Most often though these things are decided before we' re born. Some people just don' t care. They' ll fuck anyone.

All you have to do is look at chimps and other animals. If you study monkeys long enough you' ll inevitably learn that many of them don' t really care what gender their partner is. They just fuck anything that moves pretty much. In some cases they' re not even the same species as there partner. I' ve seen cats and dogs fuck.

You could argue that Humans are different from other animals because we have the choice. Homosexuals could deny their " instincts" or urges. But what' s the point? They' d still be gay, the action is meaningless. Homosexuality is defined by what they want not what they do.

Frankly I don' t care what they do. They' re not affecting my life. Infact, I don' t even care what is wrong or right. As far as I' m conserned there is no such thing. Everyone has their own morals. Even Christians can' t agree with eachother. So why do we even need this primitive idea of universal morality? I think we need to look past the things we can' t control and just accept it.

ORIGINAL: Rampage99
I probably have a lot more experience with gay people then you have unless you in fact are gay yourself...

...You' re a ***ing douche bag.

Bingo.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

Every creature has instinctive enemies, it is our instinct to despise faggots, no matter how much you try to spin it.

People who DON' T hate homosexuals are the ones that have been CONDITIONED to tolerate a natural enemy.

You' re inferring that people who are Gay are somehow a threat to heterosexuals.

Actually it is the opposite. The more gay males there are, the more pussy is for the taking by straight males. :)

Sure they are a threat.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Exactly.

Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children, or if less and less groups were procreating then ultimately you are limiting the gene pool, which is not a good idea in evolutionary terms.

" Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children, or if less and less groups were procreating then ultimately you are limiting the gene pool, which is not a good idea in evolutionary terms."

That' s stupid and unlikely. Gays make up less than .5% of the population. Firstly homosexuality have zero impact on population. Population is derived mostly from economics. Poor countries breed faster because children can help with the family, rich countries have people with fewer kids becuase kids are expensive. That' s the primary control for population right there. As for speculating about tribes as Evil Man' s example, who gives a shit about tribes? None of us live in tribes.

Besides pinning the extinction of the human race on gays is unfair. The human race will be extinct eventually. But it won' t happen because everyone went gay.

I find it kind of ironic when people say they don' t want " gay genes" in the gene pool yet they blame gays for not contributing to reproduction.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

Sure they are a threat.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Exactly.

But how does that differ from racism? Is it instinctive to procreate with our own race?

I was being deliberately ludicrous, I did say theoretically; it won' t happen, we are far more likely to kill off the human race through over-population, so maybe being gay will save the human race.

Theoretically they are a threat to the survival of the human race: if everyone became gay then no more children

Not neccesarily, there would still be sperm banks. The gays technically wouldnt have to be strait to have kids, they could just donate sperm to the lesbians.... but as far as raising the kid, i have no idea how that would work

I was being deliberately ludicrous, I did say theoretically; it won' t happen, we are far more likely to kill off the human race through over-population, so maybe being gay will save the human race.

I know you weren' t serious but I responded because some people do use that as a real argument to justify their point of view.

I agree that it would be a threat back in the day when humanity wasn' t insanely overpopulated. But in this day in age it' s more like a remedy because way too many people are having way too many kids. Kind of the same way as disease can be seen as a form of population control. The human population is certainly in no danger of diminishing any time soon.

Personally I think homosexuality is more of a fetish. Some guys are just turned on by other guys the same way some guys are turned on by women with chocolate and other messy food poured all over them. A very small case could be made about being " born gay" , though. Although I don' t think that every homo is born with a predetermined gay destiny, a friend of my sister' s was EXTREMELY tomboyish for her entire childhood, even going so far as getting boyish haircuts and the like no matter what her parents did. She grew up to be a carpet muncher.

especially your claim of distortions of the brain being labeled as a specific reason for sexual orientation.

Studies have clearly shown that homosexuals show signs of having a brain that is more like the opposite sex in the area that supposedly controls sexuality. You can deny it all you want but it' s a fact.

Trust me I' ve done my research. I also have a professor/doctor at my school who is a published author, that has lived in 13 countries (just to throw your American bias argument out the window) who is a psychologist, and teaches sexual education class (college level, no birds and bees bullshit). Since sex is her primary focus for studies homosexuality is a common discussion for her. She' s read all the research, all the reports, etc... nothing can conclusively explain what makes a person gay.

I think you' re being selective when it comes to what research you choose to believe in. You' ve chosen to believe in the person that has arguments that supports your own view.
Also, the research I' m talking about is relatively new, and while it cannot entirely explain the reasons for homosexuality, it is a clear sign that much of what controls our sexuality is determined before we are born. It' s a fact.
Of course, I might be selective too but at least I' m not saying a group of people are doing something wrong just because I have a different preference.
I say that someone is not guilty until the opposite has been proved. I have seen no proof that homosexuality in any way would be harmful to other people.

Now anyway, back to the quote I took from your post, let' s compare that with what Nitro is doing right now. He' s telling me I' m wrong. He' s telling me my beliefs are garbage. He' s making vast generalizations, picking out a certain group of people and attacking them and my directly. Yes it sucks. I' m sure it sucks for gay people to. I know it sucks for gay people to be hated. I' ve had plenty of conversations with my gay friends about it. Some things you just have to deal with. People are told they are wrong all the time. I' ve been attacked for my beliefs all my life, too. My gay friends and I complete accept each other' s opinion on the matter. It really boggles my mind that straight guys are sitting here getting all crazy about it when gay people are accepting my opinion.

There is a difference. You have an opinion or a belief that' s being attacked. Why do we attack you? Because we hate you? No, because through discussions your opinion might change.
Homosexuality can' t change. No matter how much you tell gay people are wrong, they can' t stop being gay.
That' s a very important difference between attacking ones opinions and ones sexuality.

On that note, you guys keep telling me just because I think somethings gross or disturbing doesn' t make it wrong. Well who decides what' s right and wrong? Why do you guys get to tell me I' m wrong for saying having gay sex is wrong? Just because you find my opinion mean or disturbing? Please... What gives you the right to judge me when I can' t judge others? Once again, hypocritical bullshit.

Telling what' s right or wrong is a difficult thing.
But the thing is, right or wrong is based on choices. Gay people can' t choose to become straight. I bet lots of them would if they could, just to stop hearing people like you telling them they' re wrong. But they can' t change.
We might say you are wrong about some things, but you always have a choice.
That' s what I think is the difference.

I' m not saying sex for pleasure was after religion. I' m just saying at its core, sex is for reproduction and should be viewed as such.

Humans have become much more than animals following instinct. We now choose what to do with our lifes. We are supposed to eat in order to get nutrition and survive. But you like good food don' t you? Or candy, donuts, soda, snacks? We have chosen to make eating to something more than just " surviving" and that' s what makes life worth living.
Even though the initial function of sex was to reproduce, it has become much more.

Give me it' s a reason acceptable to have sex without reproduction being the focus.

It' s enjoyable and stimulating.

That having gay relations are complete fine and acceptable

Because some people enjoy it and it doesn' t hurt anyone.

The core of my way of thinking is that the only reason something should be considered to be wrong is if it hurts someone.
Gay sex, as annoying and gross it can be, does not hurt anyone (unless someone is raped of course).
I really don' t want to think of two men being intimite with each other. I feel kinda uncomfortable with the thought but I do not consider it to be wrong. Because I know everyone is not like me. I cannot base my moral values on my own personal feelings. I have to take into account the way others think and how they work, both from a psychological perspective as well as from a biological perspecitve.

So your saying that no matter what someone can be diagnosed with homosexuality at birth? What happened to people having a choice? Personally i think that is impossible to determine what will happen

Theoretically, it is possible to diagnose the probability of someone becoming homosexual from birth. Some scientists claim that they can tell if your gay just by seeing how your brain reacts to male feromones.

He' s stated that he doesnt hate gays, he just doesnt like their life style, which has nothing to do with him being a stereotype.

Saying someone is wrong when all they do is being something they cannot choose not to be is down right mean. Maybe he doesn' t hate them, but it' s just as bad as hate.

No, I don' t. As I' ve said this entire damn thread, I' m not okay with the act of gay sex. I don' t judge the people. Obviously you can' t read.

I' ll say the same thing. I' m not judging YOU. I' m just discussing one single opinion you have. Other than this I find most of your opinions agreeable.

Think back when humans lived in small packs and tribes, what if you have a struggling tribe of 30 people, with 10 able to healthily reproduce but 8 of them are faggots?

Gay people actually reproduce anyway. There' s a theory that when we lived in the wild gay couples would reproduce with a woman and let her give birth to a child. Once the child was born they would dump her and take care of the child themselves. The chances of survival for the kid would increase by more than 30% due to the strength of the second male compared to a couple of a woman and a man. Sounds weird that a gay guy would have sex with a woman but it' s actually possible. There has been sightings of this situation in certain animal societies.

Btw, I don' t think gay couple should be allowed to marry.
Why? Well it' s against the church' s teachings. If gay people disagree then they' ll have to accept the fact that THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. So no marriage for them.
They can do some other ceremony to celebrate their love if they want to, but not a christian marriage.

ORIGINAL: ginjirou

Btw, I don' t think gay couple should be allowed to marry.
Why? Well it' s against the church' s teachings. If gay people disagree then they' ll have to accept the fact that THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. So no marriage for them.
They can do some other ceremony to celebrate their love if they want to, but not a christian marriage.

That' s the issue I wanted to bring into this discussion.

Personally I think there' s no reason for the STATE not to allow gay people to marry, but no church could, because it' s against the teachings of the church. The church reserves the right to teach what it wants and bar members as it pleases, and the government shouldn' t be bound by the rules of any religious organization.

Anyone should be able to be married by a judge and receive the same benefits like tax breaks and credit consideration as any other married couple.

Obviously that doesn' t apply if the government doesn' t claim separation of church and state.

No one wants separation of State and Church more than I do and lets say that eventually it does happen. The problem we' d have now is that, who gets to govern " marriage" ? The Church or the State?

I think the easy solution is to just leave marriage to the church and let them decide wheather or not they perform the ceremony for gays. Then simply give State unions the same status and legal benefits that marriages bring. As you suggested.