According to this 1950' s educational film, homosexuality is contagious! So if you have ever talked to a homosexual even unknowingly, then you' ve got the gay. Have fun with the man sex!

ORIGINAL: Nitro

Evil you' re an idiot. Man is not a slave to nature. Technology and medical science has allowed us to negate disease, natures primary form of population control. Because of technology and medical science, infants that were never intended to survive are instead permited to live.

We' ve already unbalanced the ecosystem and caused the extinction of many thousands of species. Natural selection no longer applies to us. We are the most un-natural creature ever to have existed on this planet.

Medicine has nothing to do with conditioning, I don' t have to make any adaptation to have medicine applied to me. If I have an infection, I drink a liquid that kills the bacteria causing my infection, and that' s that. What the HELL does that have to do with natural INSTINCT?

Y' know, there is literally only a handful of people who post here that i have time for. If Ghost, Silent, Eddie and ginjirou didn' t post here then i would have stopped posting long ago.

My entire point has been that is an opinion is formulated based on religion then it' s hardly an opinion at all. Instead it' s just a form of condtioning.

Rampage said he though it was wrong and i said that he felt that was because he was religious. He took offense. Now what i said about his mother was out of order. It was intentional and meant to piss him off. For that i appologise; Rampage, ' m sorry for purposefully insulting your mother.

I do however have serious issues with religion, especially over subjects such as this. I' ve been to Israel and i' ve seen what religion reduces people to and i simply can' t comprehend how somebody can live by these doctrines.

Rampage has the same issue with women having sex with other women as he does with men having sex with other men, so it' s got nothing to do with anal sex or any specific act. It' s the idea. He' s been raised to believe it' s wrong, and it doesn' t matter to him that he doesn' t understand why it' s wrong. It' s in the Bible. Well it also says " Do not judge, and you will not be judged..." so y' know, whatever.

The entire thing started because he said that he thought showing the movie to these kids was wrong, but by his own admission he has never seen the film, nor does he have any idea as to it' s specific content, only that it' s about homosexuality.

I' m Jewish, but i' m not an orthodox Jew. I' ve seen people thrown out of their homes by their parents because of things like this that contrast with religious beliefs. It' s bullshit. It' s a sexual preference, nothing more. All this talk of Gay lifestyles is annoying. If a person is Gay then that' s who they are and if you are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong then do not expect me to respect your opinion.

Like i said, my girlfriend isn' t Gay but she has had sex with another female. Was she in the wrong or do you actually have to be Gay for it to be wrong?

You' re saying people hate homos because they have been conditioned to do so, that is 100% untrue. I am simply stating, that it is 100% normal to hate fags, and that opposite to what you' re saying, it takes conditioning to like or tolerate them.

I don' t know see where science and technology fit into this. We are talking about basic human behavior.

You tolerate homosexuals after being conditioned to do so, anyone with half a brain can accept this.

When I was a kid no one told me homos were bad, I just knew it. And I would insult other kids calling them fags, queers etc. In order for you to tolerate homosexuals someone has to teach you it' s OK, you do not naturally generate sympathy for homosexuals out of thin air. If no one ever taught you to tolerate them you would hate them right now, because you are born with that feeling, it is your instinct to hate them, even if you are one, it is instinct to hate yourself for being a fag, until someone comes along to condition your thinking.

Self-conditioning in light of an extreme personal crisis making you change your views is possible i.e. you have a son, and he' s a faggot, you might accept him because your paternal instinct might be greater than your instinct of hate towards faggots.

Again, I am saying it' s 100% normal to hate fags, no conditioning is necessary, our natural reaction to homosexuality is reject and disgust, that' s all. And no this has nothing to do with curing diseases or landing men on the moon, moron.

I need to escape this discussion. I' m gonna wish upon the magic toenail.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

You tolerate homosexuals after being conditioned to do so, anyone with half a brain can accept this.

When I was a kid no one told me homos were bad, I just knew it. And I would insult other kids calling them fags, queers etc. In order for you to tolerate homosexuals someone has to teach you it' s OK, you do not naturally generate sympathy for homosexuals out of thin air. If no one ever taught you to tolerate them you would hate them right now, because you are born with that feeling, it is your instinct to hate them, even if you are one, it is instinct to hate yourself for being a fag, until someone comes along to condition your thinking.

That' s a fundamentally flawed theory. You hate " fags" because the first contact you had with homosexual culture was the insults you mentioned. You started calling people fag before you even knew what a fag was, really. That' s a form of conditioning. If your first contact with homosexuality was a tolerant society, then your views would be less skewed toward hate.

To say that hate is a natural response and tolerance is learned is just retarded. The way we interact with others is a learned response.

I understand what you' re saying Evil Man but I still think you' re wrong. In my eyes the only interesting aspect of this conversation is the idea of natural vs. unnatural that you' re focused with. You have the distinction of taking the position that homosexuality is unnatural. You' re not using that idea as an excuse, you' re just trying to express this human sentiment. It' s the old idea that some things are unnatural and therefore must be wrong. Naturally this brings up the assumption that all natural things must be good.

Already the idea of natural vs. unnatural is looking pretty weak at this point if you think about what I just typed. Here' s my point of view, it' s very simple. All things are natural. There is no such thing as " unnatural" except when the word is used by people to express things they can' t tollerate. By it' s very definition it' s an impossibility. Unnatural and supernatural are the same thing and you can' t have something exist outside of nature within the confines of nature. Something is either natural or it does not exist, nature includes everything.

So the whole idea that homosexuality is " unnatural" is defeated quite easily by the simple fact that it exists within nature.

I am taking about the nature of our behavior. And my point is religion has nothing to do with the common anti-gay sentiment, I am not religious at all.

The statements made selectively accusing Christians of hating homos is moronic, because as I have explained, I believe it is natural human behavior to reject homosexuality. He is just taking a jab at Christianity for the hell of it. IF you think being intolerant of homosexuals is a problem, it would certainly be a human problem, not a Christian and/or any other Religion problem.

That is like me randomly accusing Muslims of being the source of greed, it doesn' t make any sense, greed is a human behavior as much as anti-homosexuality is, they are not specific to any religious group.

And I am well aware that some religions have strong anti-homosexuals rules, but the rules within religion are irrelevant when you view them subjectively - what it all narrows down to is rules for and against that which is pleasant and unpleasant.

Being robbed is unpleasant, so it' s a sin to steal, and rules are made against it.
Having yourself or someone you care for be killed is unpleasant, so it becomes a sin, and rules are made against murder.
Homosexuality is unpleasant, so it' s a sin, and rules are made against it.

Look beyond the religion itself and you see it all stems from our basic human feeling. If it wasn' t natural for us to dislike homosexuals, it would never have shown up in religion, the feeling would have just never been there.

There are many things in Religion I consider stupid, but that is definitely not one of them. I think giving 10% of your wage to a church is stupid and unnatural, I have never once felt the natural desire to want to give away 10% of the money I earn, never, not once. But I have and so have all of you here, felt reject and disgust towards homosexuals, that is the difference between a natural feeling and a superficial feeling superimposed by a church. A church can make you feel you need to give money, no one has to make you feel you need to hate homos, you just do, it' s your nature.

Why " hate" anyone? That seems so extreme and doesn' t accomplish anything. Nobody says you have to like or endorse homosexuality, though. Just tolerate its existence.

I use the term loosely.

Heterosexuals instinctly dislike homosexuals for the same reason white people dislike black people and japanese people dislike white people: Fear for the unknown. It' s in human nature to fear the things that we' re not used to because if we do not understand something or has any experience from something we do not know how to deal with it. This causes stress and thus the unknown becomes a threat just in case it would be harmful.
But in many cases it isn' t harmful.
You can see examples of this kind of human reaction everywhere in society, where different things are considered bad for no real reason. It' s different and therefor it' s bad.
By trying to understand the things that are different we can rid ourselves of the stress that causes the feeling that something might be threatening.

This kind of behaviour isn' t exclusive to humans either
Place a kitten and a dog in the same room and the cat is likely to fear the dog because it' s an unknown creature.
But as we all know, if you raise a cat and a dog together from birth, they can become best of friends. Because they' ve learned that the thing that was different wasn' t that bad.

The statement that it' s in our instinct to dislike homosexuality doesn' t work when you consider the fact that so many straight people have no problems with it.

There is one good thing about homosexuals, their clubs, go to any gay club and you will find a huge amount of good looking strait females, they go there to feel safe.

What Ginjirou is saying is correct, it is down to the fear of the unknown and people that fear the unknown are weak, if you cannot tolerate someone for being different then you are a weak person. In life we have to tolerate the fact that a celebrity who breaks the law will get a snetanced halved because of who they are, we have to tolerate immigrants pouring into our respective countries and being a burden on our welfare systems, and we should tolerate a persons free will to be with however they choose, however it should not be forced upon minors at a learning institution in such a way that it glamourises that lifestyle, it should be taught to children in a way that they understand the option of free choice and not the mindless,bigoted views that some are spouting here. Religion does play a big part of this bigoted mindset , mainly because of the very loose interpretations of the storeis contained within their books of learning. However social conditioning can also play a part, if your older sibling or your parents or peers dispise something or someone' s life choices then your are more than likely to be of the same opinion.

What' s Brokeback Mountain about anyway?
I haven' t seen it and it seems to be a pretty boring movie.
A romantic movie about gay love? I can' t imagine anyone being able to enjoy such a movie, except gay people. And if you want to educate people on the subject it' s better to provide pure scientific data, as we have in this thread.
I think that teacher showed it just to freak the kids out.

This thread>Brokeback Mountain

Heterosexuals instinctly dislike homosexuals for the same reason white people dislike black people and japanese people dislike white people: Fear for the unknown.

Not really, the only negative feeling I' ve felt towards different races are two:

1 - Poor people, of any race. Most poor people where I live are Mexicans.

2 - I find females of many races completely unattractive, mostly blacks, Asians, Indians, and indigenous people such as Native Americans. Most any female of a pure non-white race is ugly to me, I don' t like their unrefined cranial structure and primitive body look, I may find a black female mixed with white features to be attractive, but a 100% RAW African black female with 0 traces of white is unattractive to me.

But I don' t " hate" them I just find them unattractive, they don' t disgust me either, they are just there.

Yeah, well that' s you and your personal opinions, not every mans natural instincts.
Even though it was interesting to read them, it does not add anything to your arguments regarding homosexuality.

ORIGINAL: Evil Man

I don' t like their unrefined cranial structure and primitive body look

Different does not equal inferior.
So, eventually our women will evolve into flat-assed featureless white people?? Kill me now
Lol, you' d make a good Nazi.

How does that make me a nazi?

You want me to get brain surgery to make them attractive to me? It' s not something that can be controlled, I just don' t like how they look.

So, eventually our women will evolve into flat-assed featureless white people?? Kill me now

No I' m sure there are millions of guys that only like Asians or blacks, or whatever else.

Everyone has a preference, nothing wrong with that. I personally think blond hair makes people look pale and sickly.
However, there' s a significance to the words a person chooses. " Unrefined" and " primitive" imply more than just a personal preference in appearance. It' s as though you' re saying that they' re a step back in human evolution. If they were as advanced as white people, they would leave those features behind for something technically superior.
That' s the mentality of the Aryan " super race" that the nazis believed white men to be.

I can consider them aesthetically inferior, it doesn' t make me a racist, their looks just do nothing for me.

It is different to think that most members of a race are unattractive than to think the race is barbaric and should be made slaves and burned in concentration camps. I don' t question their physical and/or mental capability, just their looks.

Im glad to see that in the time i' v been gone evilman has livened up this thread