Homosexuality...

Pendragon · Post by **Pendragon** » 2002-07-31 09:04am

I love homosexuals. Gay males are the best. All heterosexual males should. Why?

How many has not heard a girl say "the cute ones are always gay" or "gay guys are so cute"?
Would you prefer these guys would go for chicks? Personally, I have enough competition as it is.
Actually, id prefer if all other males were gay and abhorred women...

Now lesbians on the other hand, is just a waste. Not that I blame them for shunning males....

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-07-31 09:11am

Gil Hamilton wrote:My girlfriend is bisexual. It's actually pretty cool to have a girlfriend who appreciates fine looking women as much as you do.

I honestly don't have a problem with homosexuality.

Oh yeah.

Bisexual girlfriends are cool.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-07-31 09:25am

MKSheppard wrote:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=promiscuousness

pro·mis·cu·ous Pronunciation Key (pr-msky-s)
adj.

*********************************************
It is a WELL KNOWN fact that when you "sleep around" with
multiple sexual partners, you get VD, or AIDS, and looking
at pro-homosexual literature, I see it promotes promiscurity,
not staying faithful to your partner.

A correlation exists between promiscuity and the incidence of verneal disease: Correct (more partners generally means a greater chance of exposure).

Judaism/Christianity/Islam encourage monogamy: Correct (although, doesn't Islam allow multiple wives? I could be wrong on that - and it isn't really relevant).
Caveat on previous concession (and it's a big one): JCI _also_ do their level best to prevent people from becoming properly educated about the risks and joys inherent in sex. They _don't_ encourage monogamy because it is less risky (fewer partners, meaning less exposure), they encourage it for weird fucked up religious reasons (I still don't understand them, even though I used to subscribe to them). The 'benefit' of discouraging promiscuity is an accidental side effect of the damage they try to do their follower's sexuality in general. (as usual, believers influenced by humanists morals have a much more tolerant outlook)

Pro-homosexual literature encourages promiscuity: Arguable, but if it does, so what? The problem remains careless promiscuity, not homosexuality. The dangers of careless promiscuity apply regardless of whether you're gay or straight, and so do the possible precautionary measures (abstinence, monogamy, have reason to trust your partner when they say they're healthy, always use a condom if there's any doubt)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-31 10:47am

If the Church did driver training, they would try to get seatbelts outlawed because they aren't 100% effective in preventing fatalities in high-speed car crashes, then they would tell people that driving fast is a sin and chalk up the skyrocketing death toll to God's will. And homosexuals, because homosexuals drive fast

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-07-31 11:10am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Graeme Dice wrote:So 1 in 20 times it won't work. Let's see, 95% chance of someone new contracting AIDS after 60 people who are infected have sex with someone who isn't.
But then again, who the fuck is going to have sex with 60 AIDS infected people? By simple logic, such a person would be having sex with HUNDREDS of people in order to net 60 infected persons, unless they have an AIDS fetish or are astonishingly unlucky.

That's not what I said. I am talking about the spread of the disease through the general population, not to a specific person.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-31 11:47am

If you are going to hook up you have certain responsibilities to yourself and your partner.

1. make sure you and your partner are clean, that includes going in for regular testing.

2. Always wear a condom just in case.

3. If you are still not sure your partner is clean, dont have sex with them.

Simple and basic common sense

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 12:05pm

it surprises me to see so many people who love lesbians and bisexuals. look 2 women who are having sex with each other are a waste of 2 women. IF you htink bisexuals are interesting or cool, you are kidding yourself. They just get thier highs letting people know who deivant they are. If you want to build a relationship on that impression, then good luck, becasue its kind of pitiful.

You know if you can't trust your partner enough so that you don't need a condom then you probably shouldn;t be having sex with that person.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-07-31 12:10pm

Your attitude is somewhat.... intolerant.

Pendragon · Post by **Pendragon** » 2002-07-31 12:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=promiscuousness

pro·mis·cu·ous Pronunciation Key (pr-msky-s)
adj.

Having casual sexual relations frequently with different
partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.

Casual; random.

Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals;
confused: “Throngs promiscuous strew the level green”
(Alexander Pope).

*********************************************

This is the critical brain failure when humanists bash Christianity
or Islam. They think it restricts sex, when in reality, they both
teach monogamy, which means staying faithful to one sexual
partner only.

It is a WELL KNOWN fact that when you "sleep around" with
multiple sexual partners, you get VD, or AIDS, and looking
at pro-homosexual literature, I see it promotes promiscurity,
not staying faithful to your partner.

I have the sneaking suspiscion that you aint getting much action...

Id hate promiscueity (sp? that's an awful lot of syllables...

)and casual sex too if evryone else was doing it but me... I think youre just lonely and jealous. But dont be sad, I took the liberty of sending Bruce and Ramón over to comfort you.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-31 01:49pm

Is this a troll I see before me? If so, it worked.

"it surprises me to see so many people who love lesbians and bisexuals. look 2 women who are having sex with each other are a waste of 2 women. IF you htink bisexuals are interesting or cool, you are kidding yourself. They just get thier highs letting people know who deivant they are. If you want to build a relationship on that impression, then good luck, becasue its kind of pitiful.

You know if you can't trust your partner enough so that you don't need a condom then you probably shouldn;t be having sex with that person."

Fuck you. Please take this in the spirit it was offered.

As an aside, I happily note your extreme homophobia and insecurity about sex, which coupled with your personality hopefully will insure you'll never ever be able to reproduce.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-31 01:55pm

"I have the sneaking suspiscion that you aint getting much action... "

Well I doubt that. Shep sure knows how to beat... er... TREAT a lady.

"Id hate promiscueity (sp? that's an awful lot of syllables...)and casual sex too if evryone else was doing it but me..."

This hypothetical crap ain't fooling anyone, compadre.

"I think youre just lonely and jealous. But dont be sad, I took the liberty of sending Bruce and Ramón over to comfort you. "

Great. I'll just entertain myself, then.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 02:23pm

"Fuck you. Please take this in the spirit it was offered.

As an aside, I happily note your extreme homophobia and insecurity about sex, which coupled with your personality hopefully will insure you'll never ever be able to reproduce."

Intolerent? Homophobic? How would you know whether I persecute against anyone on thier sexual perference? I simply don't think its worth the effort to persecute based on someone's persoanly life.

You have probably lived a sheltered life and haven't seen too much of this in your lifetime. I can't even begin to count the number of people I have known who have lost thier sanity by going for this promisous hype. Its bullshit. half of the lesbiens/gays/bis I have known in my life were sexually abused in thier home lifes. another 3rd used sed to be abusive to another as part of thier sexual kick. About 10 -20 percent is what I would consider to be "normal", they are just like "normal" straight people except they have a different preference. (not counting those who had relationship problems with one of thier parents)

Most Bi's I have known have used as an act of power in a relationship; to dominate over the other person. A good deal of rather straight (particularily girls) were coercied into bi sex on acount of thier boyfriends (though I do have one friend whose girlfeind made him sorta bi over time, by first forcing him to take a dildo up the rear, and then have sex with a male prostitute)

Next Why would you care whether your partner was bi or not? Is your sexlife so pitiful that you need to get your kicks from a thrid person? Talk about a unfilling relationship. So void of content and meaning, you try to fill it up with by sharing with a third person you probavbly don't give a crap about?

From my own experience, the only sex that is truely great is sex with someone you deeply care about, becasue it complements your relationship by intensifyng your commintment to each other, whuch is not something you can do by bringing a 3rd person in the bed.

So I get it you have apoint of view, and anyone that disaggrees with it is intolerent? Boy back in the day tolerence was about respecting other people's rights to different points of views. You are the bigot.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-31 04:35pm

"Intolerent? Homophobic? How would you know whether I persecute against anyone on thier sexual perference? I simply don't think its worth the effort to persecute based on someone's persoanly life."

"IF you htink bisexuals are interesting or cool, you are kidding yourself. They just get thier highs letting people know who deivant they are."

I would know that you discriminate against them by reading what you said, you stupid, stupid person.

"You have probably lived a sheltered life and haven't seen too much of this in your lifetime. I can't even begin to count the number of people I have known who have lost thier sanity by going for this promisous hype. Its bullshit. half of the lesbiens/gays/bis I have known in my life were sexually abused in thier home lifes."

This is absolutely irrelevant, as you claim their sexual orientation is a result of them wanting to show off and offend people.

"I another 3rd used sed to be abusive to another as part of thier sexual kick. About 10 -20 percent is what I would consider to be "normal", they are just like "normal" straight people except they have a different preference. (not counting those who had relationship problems with one of thier parents)"

But still you consider them to be deviant. That is not only a stupid statement, it shows extreme bigotry.

"Next Why would you care whether your partner was bi or not? Is your sexlife so pitiful that you need to get your kicks from a thrid person? Talk about a unfilling relationship. So void of content and meaning, you try to fill it up with by sharing with a third person you probavbly don't give a crap about?"

Irrelevant. I have no inclination to share my partner, so I don't care if my partner is bi or not.

"From my own experience, the only sex that is truely great is sex with someone you deeply care about, becasue it complements your relationship by intensifyng your commintment to each other, whuch is not something you can do by bringing a 3rd person in the bed."

I agree with this completely.

"So I get it you have apoint of view, and anyone that disaggrees with it is intolerent? Boy back in the day tolerence was about respecting other people's rights to different points of views. You are the bigot."

Hardly, now you're just being an idiot again. Your statement was a sweeping generalization condemning bisexuals as a group. Resenting that doesn't make me a bigot.

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2002-07-31 04:35pm

From my own experience, the only sex that is truely great is sex with someone you deeply care about, becasue it complements your relationship by intensifyng your commintment to each other, whuch is not something you can do by bringing a 3rd person in the bed.

I think a hallmark card should be made with this quote!

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 05:11pm

"I would know that you discriminate against them by reading what you said, you stupid, stupid person. "

No I would say it comes from observation from dealing with people. Stating the glaringly obvious is not discrimination. Perhaps you should see a gay pride parade and all the crapo and kicks they get from displayign thier sexuality there. It is possible to think that someone engages in a self destructive behavior, and not try to proactively harm them.

"This is absolutely irrelevant, as you claim their sexual orientation is a result of them wanting to show off and offend people. "

No I am stating that its symptomaitc of a larger problem. "life is screed up so I am going to act screwed up. My mother is a bitch, My father is decent, therefore I want t ostay away from women and sleep with men". This kind of thinking is something I heard in college. No never outright, but when they talk about thier family life or why they like guys, they coem back to how thier parents treated them, or uncle abused them in about half, maybe most of the gays that I have met.

Ine need only review the outlines of what is occuring, someone mating with the wrong sex. It doesn;t take Einstien to figure out that there is somethign wrong with the person. Becasue the activity in and upon itself is self destructive.

IS it possible, for someone not to approve of an activity in upon itself, and nopt think bad of a person?

"But still you consider them to be deviant. That is not only a stupid statement, it shows extreme bigotry."

So everyone has to believe what you do? Yah thats the hallmark of tolerence.

"Irrelevant. I have no inclination to share my partner, so I don't care if my partner is bi or not. "

I was refering to the bi instance on the ground s that guys think its a good thing so they can take her to a strip bar, or get another woman in bed.

"I agree with this completely"

well at least on soemthing

"Hardly, now you're just being an idiot again. Your statement was a sweeping generalization condemning bisexuals as a group. Resenting that doesn't make me a bigot."

Big difference with me and you. I don;t condemn people for harming themselves, I condemn people for harming others.

I think iots really sad, society is set up to help people, and give them a context for living, and expericening life, yet some people are so content on destroying themselves. sad really.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-31 05:28pm

No I would say it comes from observation from dealing with people. Stating the glaringly obvious is not discrimination. Perhaps you should see a gay pride parade and all the crapo and kicks they get from displayign thier sexuality there. It is possible to think that someone engages in a self destructive behavior, and not try to proactively harm them.

Hasty generalization and appeal to personal experience. There are many gays who don't participate in such activities and don't come out. Some are simply gay and don't make a big thing out of it, just like I'm white and don't make a big thing out of it. People like the KKK, however, choose to do so at the expense of others.

No I am stating that its symptomaitc of a larger problem. "life is screed up so I am going to act screwed up. My mother is a bitch, My father is decent, therefore I want t ostay away from women and sleep with men". This kind of thinking is something I heard in college. No never outright, but when they talk about thier family life or why they like guys, they coem back to how thier parents treated them, or uncle abused them in about half, maybe most of the gays that I have met.

Hasty generalization and the same appeal to personal experience, again. If you're saying that all gays have that background, or that they're all just trying to show off, you're a bigot.

Ine need only review the outlines of what is occuring, someone mating with the wrong sex. It doesn;t take Einstien to figure out that there is somethign wrong with the person. Becasue the activity in and upon itself is self destructive.

Lines like "It doesn't take Einstein to figure out..." usually come attached to claims which the author cannot back up with the slightest logic. You are no exception. Provide your reasoning so it can be properly reviewed.

IS it possible, for someone not to approve of an activity in upon itself, and nopt think bad of a person?

That depends on your definition of "approve." If you mean that the person doesn't care, then yes. If you mean do they encourage or see it as good/evil, then you're playing semantics games.

So everyone has to believe what you do? Yah thats the hallmark of tolerence.

No, it's just that anyone with your beliefs is a bigot by the literal definition of the word.

Big difference with me and you. I don;t condemn people for harming themselves, I condemn people for harming others.

And, how are two bisexuals or two gay people harming others by having sex together?

I think iots really sad, society is set up to help people, and give them a context for living, and expericening life, yet some people are so content on destroying themselves. sad really.

Nice word play. You don't hate homosexuals/bisexuals, you just feel sorry for them. Regardless, you think what they're doing has some sort of moral consequence for reasons only bigots like you can see, and your statements make you out to look like some high school kid who considers his experiences to be the entire spectrum of what life has to offer. Grow up.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-31 05:35pm

"No I would say it comes from observation from dealing with people. Stating the glaringly obvious is not discrimination. Perhaps you should see a gay pride parade and all the crapo and kicks they get from displayign thier sexuality there. It is possible to think that someone engages in a self destructive behavior, and not try to proactively harm them."

Ah. So now, not only are all bisexuals sectretly just being bisexual because they want to to show off, but gays too? Wow. I never imagined.

"No I am stating that its symptomaitc of a larger problem. "life is screed up so I am going to act screwed up. My mother is a bitch, My father is decent, therefore I want t ostay away from women and sleep with men". This kind of thinking is something I heard in college. No never outright, but when they talk about thier family life or why they like guys, they coem back to how thier parents treated them, or uncle abused them in about half, maybe most of the gays that I have met."

Gay or bisexual? We were discussing bisexuals. Or are you saying both are "deviant"? Guess so. These are people you have met, and you state that not all of your friends were like this. How, then, can you make a sweeping generalization including the whole group of people?

"Ine need only review the outlines of what is occuring, someone mating with the wrong sex. It doesn;t take Einstien to figure out that there is somethign wrong with the person. Becasue the activity in and upon itself is self destructive."

It isn't. Prove it's self destructive.

"IS it possible, for someone not to approve of an activity in upon itself, and nopt think bad of a person?"

Yes. For example, I don't approve of you spouting your bigotry, but I don't dislike you personally.

"So everyone has to believe what you do? Yah thats the hallmark of tolerence."

No, I tolerate your beliefs, even bigoted ones, as long as you don't discriminate against a group of people. Which. You. Did.

"I was refering to the bi instance on the ground s that guys think its a good thing so they can take her to a strip bar, or get another woman in bed."

According to my experience, few guys are really into this when push comes to shove.

"well at least on soemthing"

Indeed.

"Big difference with me and you. I don;t condemn people for harming themselves, I condemn people for harming others."

They don't. How are gay people having sex harming you?

"I think iots really sad, society is set up to help people, and give them a context for living, and expericening life, yet some people are so content on destroying themselves. sad really."

"Destroying themselves"? You're just repeating this asinine claim without a shred of proof. How are two consenting adults destroying themselves by having sex?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-31 06:19pm

No I am stating that its symptomaitc of a larger problem. "life is screed up so I am going to act screwed up. My mother is a bitch, My father is decent, therefore I want t ostay away from women and sleep with men". This kind of thinking is something I heard in college. No never outright, but when they talk about thier family life or why they like guys, they coem back to how thier parents treated them, or uncle abused them in about half, maybe most of the gays that I have met.

Iam gay and I resent this statement.

It is not supported by science(are you saying you know more about homosexuality than the APA?)

It is generaly accepted that sexual orientation is determined before or shortly after birth, either through genetics or hormones and is not a symptom, a choice, or even a defect or problem.

Homosexuality, and bisexuality are simple variation in a population.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-31 06:21pm

Let me just say that I am fucking tired of seeing the word "intolerant" being abused by intolerant people. Shep, get it through your head: there is no hypocrisy in being intolerant of intolerance itself.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 06:45pm

"Hasty generalization and appeal to personal experience. There are many gays who don't participate in such activities and don't come out. Some are simply gay and don't make a big thing out of it, just like I'm white and don't make a big thing out of it. People like the KKK, however, choose to do so at the expense of others. "

Most people generalizie, its helps us sort through the world. Imagine if you couldn't generalize how much more difficult it would be to understand anything, But I didn't say that it was everyone, and even stated a large chunck of them can and do behave normally.

"Hasty generalization and the same appeal to personal experience, again. If you're saying that all gays have that background, or that they're all just trying to show off, you're a bigot. "

Well here is another generalization, its better to decide things based upon a good deal of experience than theory. It would appear its you who are the bigot. Someone else has a different point of view, instead of trying t oreason you shout out names, without offering anything to support your position. Now since you decry calling upon perosnal experience, please denote somehow with something that supports your psotion without demagaugery.

"Lines like "It doesn't take Einstein to figure out..." usually come attached to claims which the author cannot back up with the slightest logic. You are no exception. Provide your reasoning so it can be properly reviewed. "

You want logic, and evidence yet preasent none, assuming your case is already established. Now you can;t generalize bu only use absolutes, and make your case.

Here is my logic, if everyone was gay, there would be no next generation, and the human would cease to exist. Does that not reek of soemthign self destructive? Pleaser refute with your non-generalized absolute logic. I would enjoy listening to your bigoted stupidity.

"That depends on your definition of "approve." If you mean that the person doesn't care, then yes. If you mean do they encourage or see it as good/evil, then you're playing semantics games. "

Not just semantics, its the core of the issue. Its easy to hate people, its hard to recognize something for what it is ,and the call it what it is. Self destructive. Darwinian Logic concludes that one of the primairy function of an organism is to reproduce. For someone to make a decision to cast aside the capacity for reproduction for what is fundementally a misdirected sexual appetite for whatever reason is to decide to terminate a purpose for life. IF yoiu don't care for people, who could simply call it another choice, its really suicide of sorts -- plain and simple.

I don't think yiou get it. I don;t hate, or dislike anyone becasue they are gay/lesbian/bi. I advise them, if asked what I think, I will give them a truthful answer. Doesn;t make me a bigot for looking at certain set of data, and determining upon what I know to be true to come to conclusion what they are doing is wrong for themselves and society as a whole. What gived me the right to decide such thing? I give myself the right to determine and base judgements. They are not binding on others, and a certain darwinian aspect to it makes it favourable to me to advise them to continue on this course, makeing my genes more likely to pass on with less competition.

"No, it's just that anyone with your beliefs is a bigot by the literal definition of the word."

Telling people that what they are doing is fine when in fact is not, is not doing them any favours no matter how you slice the deck. Its unfortunate, but nonetheless true. to do otherwise is lie to yourself and the person who you advise.

I remember when I had a group project in accounting class, being at the top of the class, I decided to help out (like I ussually do) a group of struggleing classmates. Now its senor year, and we are all compteting for jobs. and i gave one of them a rather simple assignment, that could be done in a lab in a half hour. I come back about 40 minutes later wondering whats taking so long, so we can move to the next part of the assignment. There was trouble, she didn't know how to use Excel. A senior in college, an accountant, (takes a 5 years worth of credits to become an accountant these days) and she didn;t know how to use excel. Behind schedule, I grab the assignment, and finish it up for her. I then ask her why she didn;t know excel. Well she had someone else do all the work for her. (got a disk from a previous semester student and paid them to change all the projects). I asked if she thought that this was a good thing, now that she couldn't even do the simplest thing in excel as an accountant? she said, "Well I will just work someplace that doesn;t use excel". She was simply wrong to take this position. (its unheard of for an accounting position not to use excel in some form) SO I sat there, and explained it to her, that she needed to know this. I then tutored her for the next 3 weeks getting her up to basic functioning speed.

Perhaps it was bigoted of me not to just accept something blantantly wrong and self destructive. And perhapss its in my best interests to have one less competitive canidate for a job. but I am like that. I call them like I see them. I didn't hate her but I thought the idea was a bad, and I said so.

"Nice word play. You don't hate homosexuals/bisexuals, you just feel sorry for them. Regardless, you think what they're doing has some sort of moral consequence for reasons only bigots like you can see, and your statements make you out to look like some high school kid who considers his experiences to be the entire spectrum of what life has to offer. Grow up."

I don't see any play on words in my sentance. just sincere thught on the subject. Its allot more than what you gave me, just a bunch of garbage and name calling. Is that all you have to offer, or are you going to back it up with something?

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 07:27pm

"Let me just say that I am fucking tired of seeing the word "intolerant" being abused by intolerant people. Shep, get it through your head: there is no hypocrisy in being intolerant of intolerance itself ."

total acceptence and aquicence to something that is self destructive is not a virtue.
in a language you can understand

BOOL homosexualityIsGood;

run_objective_analysis(&homosexualityIsGood);

if(homosexualityIsGood){
EVERYONE_LIVES_HAPPILY_EVER_AFTER();
esle{
YOU_GET_FUCKED();
}

one or the other, you just have to make sure what your analysis true to what you know.

And as to your argument Wong, if a junior engineer was given an assignment, and at teh completetion of the assigment he came up to you and asked you what you thought about what they had done for the deisgn work. You carefully look at the assignment, and you see some flaws in the underlying asumptions unpon which he did his assignment Dejected, unwilling to admit that what he did was flawed, look into the cold face of reality, he calls you introlerent, adn bigoted, offering no explanation for the obvious flaws in the deisgn, and calls it "just a difference of engineering" and goes on a "Bad engineering pride march" through the office. Eventually he finds soft minded people who never learned to reason in thier life, and soon enough, anyone who does not accept this new deisgn "philosophy" is a bigot. Time marches on with insanity intensifing, pretty soon maangement buckles and says a certain set proportion of all projects must caontain these obvious design flaws. doesn;t matter that it keeps on failing to meet standards, and more and more people just keep getting hurt for relying on this project, it now becomes unacceptable to question the wisdom of the flww, for if you do, everyone barrages you with hate and intolerence, calling you a bigot or worse. But all you did and continue to do, is call things like you see them, being true to yourself, and giving best consoul to others. You never hated the guy, just didn't blindly approve of how he was doing things.

Thats what I am faced with.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-31 08:28pm

Azeron wrote:total acceptence and aquicence to something that is self destructive is not a virtue.

No one has provided a shred of evidence that homosexuality is self-destructive. The widespread claim that AIDS is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality is bullshit; there are more heterosexual AIDS cases in the world than homosexual AIDS cases (see Africa). And so your entire argument rests upon a false premise ("homosexuality is self-destructive") whose falsity has been repeatedly pointed out to you despite your invincible ignorance.

in a language you can understand
BOOL homosexualityIsGood;
run_objective_analysis(&homosexualityIsGood);
if(homosexualityIsGood){
EVERYONE_LIVES_HAPPILY_EVER_AFTER();
esle{
YOU_GET_FUCKED();
}

Incorrect. Let me show you the code that you have really been using:

Code: Select all

HOMOSEXUALITY = self-destructive
IF (HOMOSEXUALITY = self-destructive) {
     echo "Homosexuality is bad"
ELSE
     echo "" > /dev/null
ENDIF

[/color]
In other words, you define "homosexuality = self-destructive" as a premise, based on some hasty generalizations and appallingly bad logic, you ignore repeated arguments that there is no causal connection between homosexuality and promiscuity, AIDS, or any of the other things associated with it by the bigot brigade, and then you proceed to construct circular logic designed to affirm the premise.

And as to your argument Wong, if a junior engineer was given an assignment, and at teh completetion of the assigment he came up to you and asked you what you thought about what they had done for the deisgn work. You carefully look at the assignment, and you see some flaws in the underlying asumptions unpon which he did his assignment.

This is what I and many others have done to you. Unfortunately, you are too arrogant to accept that these flaws exist.

Instead, you accuse everyone else of doing precisely what you are doing: ignoring massive gaping holes in your argument. The only difference is that we can show where your logical errors are, while you merely repeat your flawed premises and accuse us of incompetence for not blindly accepting them.

But all you did and continue to do, is call things like you see them, being true to yourself, and giving best consoul to others.

That is only a valid defense if I can logically justify my position. If it is based on blind ignorance and bigotry (as yours is), then it is no defense. Being "true to yourself" means nothing; a bigot is true to himself by being bigoted.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-31 08:52pm

Most people generalizie, its helps us sort through the world.

The hallmark of intellectual laziness. No wonder you're a bigot. Just because most people do it doesn't mean it's a rational way of doing things.

Imagine if you couldn't generalize how much more difficult it would be to understand anything, But I didn't say that it was everyone, and even stated a large chunck of them can and do behave normally.

Perhaps you should look at your own words:

No I am stating that its symptomaitc of a larger problem. "life is screed up so I am going to act screwed up. My mother is a bitch, My father is decent, therefore I want t ostay away from women and sleep with men". This kind of thinking is something I heard in college. No never outright, but when they talk about thier family life or why they like guys, they coem back to how thier parents treated them, or uncle abused them in about half, maybe most of the gays that I have met.

This is eerily similar to some redneck Klan member saying, "Those black people! All's they ever does is complain about slavery and how the white man has mistreated them!"

Either stand by your words or think before you type. You ascribed a bad family life and social deficiency to all gay people. That's bigotry.

Well here is another generalization, its better to decide things based upon a good deal of experience than theory.

So, your small, localized experiences with the homosexual population are indicative of the whole?

It would appear its you who are the bigot.

Really?! I'd love to see you explain that. I'm not the one saying that homosexuals and bisexuals are all attention-craving, neglected misfits. Where do I ascribe personality traits to a specific group based solely upon the fact that its members are members of that group? Do you even know what bigotry is? Or is it just something you throw around whenever someone tells you how stupid your ideas are? You remind me of deluded teenagers who call everything they don't like "ignorant," without any real grasp of the meaning of the word. All they know is "Duh, ignorant is bad, right?" You seem to think that a bigot is anyone who harshly criticizes your views. By your definition, debate tournaments all throughout the country are filled with bigots!

Someone else has a different point of view, instead of trying t oreason you shout out names, without offering anything to support your position.

Your point of view is simply bigoted, and many have told you why, including me. You're taking your negative experiences with gays/bisexuals and holding them up as the standard. I have a gay friend, and he lives a completely normal, mundane life, doesn't do gay pride parades, and keeps his personal life personal. Looks like your generalization has failed.

Now since you decry calling upon perosnal experience, please denote somehow with something that supports your psotion without demagaugery.

My position is that gay people are people just like everyone else and that their sexuality has no bearing on their personality or background. You prefer to lump gay people all into the limp-wristed, lisped, gay stereotype. Why do I have to explain that stereotypes are inherently flawed notions to you?

You want logic, and evidence yet preasent none, assuming your case is already established. Now you can;t generalize bu only use absolutes, and make your case.

That's right. I want logic and evidence from you, because you're making the claim. My views are irrelevant, but I've outlined them to you anyway, with supporting evidence of a gay person that betrays your stereotype, therefore your stereotype is wrong. The only thing you can conclusively generalize about gay people is that they're gay. They're not all social deviants who were neglected as children.

Here is my logic, if everyone was gay, there would be no next generation, and the human would cease to exist. Does that not reek of soemthign self destructive? Pleaser refute with your non-generalized absolute logic. I would enjoy listening to your bigoted stupidity.

My "bigoted stupidity"? The fact that you can say that with a straight face is sickening. You're sitting here, telling everyone that gay people are all self destructive, even though they can lead perfectly normal lives. What about impotent men? Should we lump them into your "Groups I am Intolerant Of" list? After all, if everyone was impotent, the human race wouldn't reproduce, and some people are born impotent from birth. What about people who choose not to have children? Are they "self destructive," as well?

Not just semantics, its the core of the issue. Its easy to hate people, its hard to recognize something for what it is ,and the call it what it is. Self destructive. Darwinian Logic concludes that one of the primairy function of an organism is to reproduce. For someone to make a decision to cast aside the capacity for reproduction for what is fundementally a misdirected sexual appetite for whatever reason is to decide to terminate a purpose for life. IF yoiu don't care for people, who could simply call it another choice, its really suicide of sorts -- plain and simple.

It's not a decision. It's decided at the genomic level. This has been brought to all our attentions repeatedly in this thread, and yet you ignore it.

I don't think yiou get it. I don;t hate, or dislike anyone becasue they are gay/lesbian/bi. I advise them, if asked what I think, I will give them a truthful answer. Doesn;t make me a bigot for looking at certain set of data, and determining upon what I know to be true to come to conclusion what they are doing is wrong for themselves and society as a whole.

No, you don't get it. Bigotry isn't simply hating everyone of a certain group. It's subscribing certain social behaviors to everyone of a group based on the fact that they're a member of that group. You ascribed social deviance and parental neglect to gay and bisexual people for the sole purpose that they were oriented that way sexually. That is bigotry.

Don't pretend to be objectively looking at data, either. You're simply trying to alleviate yourself of guilt by saying, "Well, all gay people are this way, and they don't reproduce, so it's objective, and it's OK." Wrong. Impotent men and women don't reproduce by no fault of their own, and gay people are gay by no fault of their own. Have you ever considered what kind of incredibly fucked up social conditions would make a man want to give up and suppress his natural attraction to women, and then replace that with an attraction to men? Men are butt-ugly compared to women! Obviously, gay men don't think so. You think there's something in their biology that makes them attracted to other men?

You remind me of the "scientists" back in the 19th and early 20th centuries that did "research" to "prove" that black people were intellectually inferior to whites. Sure, based on the data, you could make that conclusion, but the data was flawed. Your data (experiences with gays/bisexuals) is not indicative of the whole, so you can't make judgments about the whole based on it. But, that doesn't stop you, Mister "All Bisexuals are Just Trying to Get Attention."

What gived me the right to decide such thing? I give myself the right to determine and base judgements. They are not binding on others, and a certain darwinian aspect to it makes it favourable to me to advise them to continue on this course, makeing my genes more likely to pass on with less competition.

To "advise" them? This is the 21st century. Gay people can have families, and if it wasn't for the pervasive intolerance like yours, gay parents would be much more common.

Telling people that what they are doing is fine when in fact is not, is not doing them any favours no matter how you slice the deck. Its unfortunate, but nonetheless true. to do otherwise is lie to yourself and the person who you advise.

Who is anyone advising? Someone asked for opinions on homosexuality, not advice for homosexuals. You speak of homosexuals like they're criminals or something.

I remember when I had a group project in accounting class, being at the top of the class, I decided to help out (like I ussually do) a group of struggleing classmates. Now its senor year, and we are all compteting for jobs. and i gave one of them a rather simple assignment, that could be done in a lab in a half hour. I come back about 40 minutes later wondering whats taking so long, so we can move to the next part of the assignment. There was trouble, she didn't know how to use Excel. A senior in college, an accountant, (takes a 5 years worth of credits to become an accountant these days) and she didn;t know how to use excel. Behind schedule, I grab the assignment, and finish it up for her. I then ask her why she didn;t know excel. Well she had someone else do all the work for her. (got a disk from a previous semester student and paid them to change all the projects). I asked if she thought that this was a good thing, now that she couldn't even do the simplest thing in excel as an accountant? she said, "Well I will just work someplace that doesn;t use excel". She was simply wrong to take this position. (its unheard of for an accounting position not to use excel in some form) SO I sat there, and explained it to her, that she needed to know this. I then tutored her for the next 3 weeks getting her up to basic functioning speed.

Don't you get it? The fact that you're making this analogy means that you think gay people are all deficient or inferior because they're gay! That's bigotry!

Perhaps it was bigoted of me not to just accept something blantantly wrong and self destructive.

So, you think homosexuality is evil? That sounds pretty bigoted to me.

And perhapss its in my best interests to have one less competitive canidate for a job. but I am like that. I call them like I see them. I didn't hate her but I thought the idea was a bad, and I said so.

The more I read your tripe, the more I'm disgusted by you.

I don't see any play on words in my sentance. just sincere thught on the subject. Its allot more than what you gave me, just a bunch of garbage and name calling. Is that all you have to offer, or are you going to back it up with something?

What, not accepting your hasty generalizations is "garbage"? You didn't read a single word I write, did you?

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-31 08:58pm

No one has provided a shred of evidence that homosexuality is self-destructive. The widespread claim that AIDS is somehow intrinsically linked to homosexuality is bullshit; there are more heterosexual AIDS cases in the world than homosexual AIDS cases (see Africa). And so your entire argument rests upon a false premise ("homosexuality is self-destructive") whose falsity has been repeatedly pointed out to you despite your invincible ignorance.

could you please point out where I said anything about AIDS or promiscuity? Someone else talked about that. please refrain from putting words in my mouth, and stick to debating my argument if you are going to refute points in it. Personnaly I think I only made a argument on Prosmicuity on what does to someone pyschology, and how some guys think that havbing a bi for a gf is great thing. I think risky or promiscuity is a problem on both sides of the fence and are a dnager to everyone.

Code: Select all

HOMOSEXUALITY = self-destructive 
IF (HOMOSEXUALITY = self-destructive) { 
     echo "Homosexuality is bad" 
ELSE 
     echo "" > /dev/null 
ENDIF

What language is that? looks like VB with syntax errors on a unix system. yah thats really bad code now that I think of it. Do you code anymore?

well I think you may have a point, but I think you missed the subtly of not defining the run_ovjective_analysis() function. symbloically I was defining the function as an individual decision proccess. of course its not going to be completely objective as one inputs thier own value system. So whats your point?

I have noticed you suually don;t get subtle jokes, or points. Maybe you are just a bit too literal, or I am trying to assume too much.

In other words, you define "homosexuality = self-destructive" as a premise , based on some hasty generalizations and appallingly bad logic, you ignore repeated arguments that there is no causal connection between homosexuality and promiscuity, AIDS, or any of the other things associated with it by the bigot brigade, and then you proceed to construct circular logic designed to affirm the premise.

You accuse me of bias in a rather unstubstantiated form, I could accuse you in the same manner. Again here with aids and promiscuity, I never said anything of the sorts. That was someone else.

What arrogence.

That is only a valid defense if I can logically justify my position. If it is based on blind ignorance and bigotry (as yours is), then it is no defense. Being "true to yourself" means nothing; a bigot is true to himself by being bigoted.

LMAO. You have run aground and are no where near what I was saying. Are you sure you paying attention to what I was posting about? Again you call me a bigot. and know absolutely nothing about how I treat gay people in my life. Ussually unless someone is flammingly gya I don't even notcie cause I don't obseess over it.

Now try reading what I said, replying to what I said, rebutting what I said in a logical manor (and good code) and stop name calling.

I am an open minded person, you can change my mind. But you have to come up with a good argument, a definitive argument. slurs are not going to change my mind.

Virgil Caine · Post by **Virgil Caine** » 2002-07-31 09:00pm

Originally posted by Azeron
Here is my logic, if everyone was gay, there would be no next generation, and the human would cease to exist.

This is so.

Of course on the other hand, even with the number of heterosexuals we have now, we seem to be moving pretty close to this planet's carrying capacity. And once we all starve to death--or die from one of the other repercussions of overpopulation--then there would be no next generation, and the human race would cease to exist.

No one is saying, "everyone should be gay."

What they are saying is that homosexuality is no less self-destructive than heterosexuality. Taking that statement to extremes like you just did isn't really logical, either.

You contend that "Darwinian Logic concludes that one of the primary functions of an organism is to reproduce."

So where does that leave people who are sterile or celibate? Must everyone commence fulfilling their "primary functions" as soon as they are able lest they be labelled "self-destructive"?

The way it goes is this: you're arguing an untenable position that feigns legitimacy by using an ad hominem argument: "look at me, all I do is condemn a group of people as being 'self-destructive' with nothing but logical fallacies to back me up, and people call me intolerant! Stop it!"

There's no reason to stop it. If there's no greater substance to your argument than, "homosexuality is wrong, because if everyone was gay humanity would die out," there's no reason to expect myself or other people offended by your bigotry to let it stand.

-Virgil

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Homosexuality...

Re: Definitiion of promiscuousness.

Re: Definitiion of promiscuousness.

Re: Definitiion of promiscuousness.