0

i can't beleive i'm starting a thread about this... but it is a subject that must be discussed through and through...

1.- when i was talking about hating everything gay, i wasn't talking about what they've invented, because the fact that they're gay doesn't mean they're intelligent...

2.- i never intended to say that my god is bigger than yours... in the end i don't think any religion approves of gay relationships...


3.- being gay has nothing to do with skin color or anything you mentioned... because, differently from the others, is a decision from a human being about going the wrong way...

23
Contributors
198
Replies
203
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by GrimJack
Featured Replies
  • 1

    Also, I do not think saying that someone dislikes others is exactly bad... If someone dislikes gay people b/c the gays act against religion, ethics, or other social standards then so be it.. If people are allowed to do whatever they like (including being openly gay) then I don't see … Read More

  • [quote=quintoncoert;419645]i have never seen anything about women having sex with women in the bible but about men it is very clear.[/quote]Leviticus 18:22 "[I]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.[/I]" My views on homosexuality: Religiously - it is wrong in the eyes of God and condemnable … Read More

  • [quote=joshSCH;420082] I mean, all people were created in the image and likeness of god.. and if gayness is not a choice then god created it. IF god created it.. and he blatantly bashes it throughout the bible.. then the only conclusions that can be drawn are that one, God is … Read More

  • [quote=hbk619;420557]Ok, you found the other guys attractive, did you consciously (eek bad spelling) decide that? or was it more of an instinct? I know I don't chose, it's either there or it's not. You chose not to get with the other guys but you did find them attractive. In the … Read More

  • 2

    the use of the word "gay" for homosexuals is an abomination. They're no more gay than anyone having a good time... Anyway, I've little against them in principle. What I dead set against is their constant demands to be given special privileges over other people. The worst of those excesses … Read More

0

>>when i was talking about hating everything gay, i wasn't talking about what they've invented, because the fact that they're gay doesn't mean they're intelligent...
Ok, then what did you mean?

>>is a decision from a human being about going the wrong way...
many people do not believe gayness is a personal decision but rather something they are born with, similar to skin color. A gay person could no more change his behavior than a straight person could (or would want to) become gay.

0

now this is really interesting.

i sincerely doubt that it can be genetic and by extension of argument even physiological.

you see there is a measure of consistency in what we find beautiful in members of the opposite gender and this cuts accross race, culture and pretty much everything. this is because what we find beautiful is directly related to perpetuation of a species. for example. the tiny chin that most men would find beautiful in a female is a direct marking of the levels of estrogen her body produces. from this one can only deduce that what we find beautiful is DNA based. no culture can so influence any significant section of its males so that they cannot find a significant proportion of women which is considered beautiful in another culture beautiful too.

so if being gay is genetic how in the first place did evolution put into this one man the instinct to understand that another man is beautiful?

i mean if men had found each other attractive for over 10 000 generations(the most conservative estimate based on the age of the human race) then just how did the DNA survived for so long without being removed from the gene pool? let me put it this way. even if dna has let to instinct in some men which make them prefer other men and they have sex with these men then just how did they transfer their dna over 10 000 generations so that their offspring living today can still find other men beautiful?

of course if there is some statistical evdence which proves me wrong or perhaps they discover a new reccesive gene which is responsible for this...

First of all, you forget that women too can be gay. It is very doubtful that gayness is transferred via dna simply because these gays would probably be extinct by now (no way to reproduce). Also, the human genome has been mapped, and as far as scientists know, there is nothing that codes for sexual orientation.. gayness is most likely caused by environmental factors (Such as a boy growing up with three older sisters), and/or/possibly choice.

first of all... let me make myself clear... i hate gays... i hate everything that has to do with gays...

in my opinion, gayness is the worst disease there is... because that's what it is, a psychological disease, that makes a man feel attracted by another man...

lol :D Women can be gay too!

there's nothing genetic, nor any physiological need, since AFAIK it is not necessary for a man to be physically satisied by another man... what is a physiological need is for a man to be satisfied by a woman, just as it was meant to be... physiological needs are those humans have from their animal being, also called instinct... such as the need to pee, to eat to sleep... or have you ever seen a dog having gay relationships with other dogs? of course not... why? because they don't have a mind to have f***ed up by some weird "need" to have someone of their same sex beside them...

I agree, there would be no reason for gays to 'evolve' or for such a sexual orientation to become a genetic trait... hence, genetics and gayness have nothing to do with each other.

gay people shouldn't be praised... his only causes more people to think this is good...

actually gay sex is the source of many diseases... maybe is a punishment to mankind for allowing this to happen... or at least i feel it that way...

even (as christians may know), God Himself is againsta gay relationships... i can't recall where it is, but it clearly says (in other words, obviously) "gays will not go to Heaven"...

conclusion... gays shouldn't exist... and it is a mistake to think they are a "nature's mistake", since gayness doesn't have its origin in anything natural, nor genetic, nor physiological... its purely mental... sick people that fancy other people from their same sex... gays are the universe's scum...

hmm.. I also do not think gays should be 'praised' in the way that they are today.. probably because I'm so conservative :p. However, I do believe the gays came about from environmental and natural factors unknown to us all...


> maybe is a punishment to mankind for allowing this to happen...
> gays will not go to Heaven
How nice of you to quote your mysticism at us. Do you have something substantive rather than just idle threats of "my god is better than your god"? The majority of the worlds population isn't christian (or muslim, or jew, or hindu or any other cult you care to mention).

hah salem, your blunt logic always cracks me up :D
However, the majority of the world's population is Catholic.. so therefore christianity is the top dog amongst religions...

From the statistics I've seen, the incidence of Aquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome in the United States is something like still 98% within the somewhat overlapping communities of homosexual individuals and shared-needle drug users. (There's a reason AIDS was called the 'Gay Plague' until the Political Correctness Police shut the term down.) From what I can tell, Nichito's not saying that normal sex (yes, I just said that) is completely disease-free, he's saying that some diseases seem to have started among, and are found more commonly among, homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Yes, the gays do statistically contract HIV more often that others.. however, let's not get carried away.. aids can affect us all.. and not only that, but I'm sure the heterosexuals have probably started more diseases that the homosexuals..

0

Oh, well.. by majority I most nearly meant the largest religious group.. I did not mean the world was >50% Christian :p. My mistake, bad word choice.

0

>>first of all... let me make myself clear... i hate gays... i hate everything that has to do with gays...

I certainly hope this thread does not turn into hate speech. If it does then we might have to give someone an infraction, delete their post and close this thread.

0

this thread was not started as a hate speech... that comment was posted in another thread... i just created this one so we could widely discuss it...

when i commented that, i meant gay comunities, gay conversations... and that kind of stuff... i have no problem in using something inventd or discovered by someone gay... but you will never ever see me sharing anything more than a professional relationship or none at all...

0

@ Ancient Dragon:

as i stated it in the other thread, gayness has nothing to do with natural processes, genetics or anything... i clearly stated that the human need to be sexually satisfied comes from his instinct... instinct indicates humans to have sexual intercourse with someone from the opposite sex... there's no way gayness can be assed through as genetic information...

gayness is just the same as masochism... some weird experimentation made by some wacked up guy that ended liking this new sensation... a psychological impulse to do something that wasn't meant to be...

to say that gayness is passed through genetics is like saying stealing is passed through genetics...

0

>>as i stated it in the other thread, gayness has nothing to do with natural processes
And your proof? Where is your Ph.D. in something? There has been a lot of discussion on that topic and even the experts don't know the answer. Is it genetics? I agree its probably not. Environment influence ? No, not that either because gay people are raised in hetrosexual families. Choice ? No, very few if any gays choose to be gay, just like straight people choose to be straight. So what is it -- I don't think anyone knows.

1

Also, I do not think saying that someone dislikes others is exactly bad... If someone dislikes gay people b/c the gays act against religion, ethics, or other social standards then so be it.. If people are allowed to do whatever they like (including being openly gay) then I don't see why others are not allowed to dislike whoever they choose to dislike...

Votes + Comments
pal
0

@ A.D.:
agreed... perhaps we may want to consider experimentation as the best explanation... experimentation just to see what it feels like to do things different, and end liking it... but then, if it was experimentation, it was chioce... choice to keep doing it, or just stopping it...

environment influence might be a good explanation too nowadays... since there's a lot of societies that promote gay communities and stuff... so, some kid that has been rejected, with no family support and everything sees that gays "are" (by "are" i mean seem) happy, so he wants to be happy... so he turns to the gay community...

0

Yes, the gays do statistically contract HIV more often that others.. however, let's not get carried away.. aids can affect us all.. and not only that, but I'm sure the heterosexuals have probably started more diseases that the homosexuals..

I merely pointed out that a specific disease has its largest predominance among a specific subset of humankind...in this case, homosexuals. And yes, the Human Immunodeficiancy Virus can infect anyone...but it has its greatest instance of infection among Homosexual individuals, or the somewhat overlapping group of drug addicts who share contaminated needles. And there's been a huge flap about how Heterosexual AIDS will become common for over a decade now, possibly closer to two, yet the disease is still mostly limited to the group(s) named above.

And unless you're postulating genetic engineering or biowarfare, I'd say that mankind hasn't created any such diseases, but yes, there are a number of STDs which seem to have shown up first among normal (that is, heterosexual) interactions. Although it'd be interesting to do a study on the prevalence of those diseases among the two communities as well...Anyway, I was simply pointing out one disease, which has become such a political hotbutton that the ferver and vehemence behind it make it exceedingly well known.

0

oh... come on... will you tell me you never use the word hate to refer something you dislike?

0

>>experimentation just to see what it feels like to do things different, and end liking it
I would suggest that a truely straight person would not even imagine doing that. Having sex with same gender is just as revolting to straights as having sex with opposite gener is to gays. A third group consists of people who go either way.

0

ok... lets put it this way... AIDS came with gay sex... then came the so-called "bi-sexuals", which to me are as gay as the homosexuals... and had intercourse with a woman... this woman had intercourse with other three men without knowing about the disease... and so on and so on...

see? its not like diseases are born when you respect the natural order of things... but when you start messing up with order, comes disaster...

0

Choice ? No, very few if any gays choose to be gay, just like straight people choose to be straight. So what is it -- I don't think anyone knows.

Technically, a case could be made for choice. There is a difference between having homosexual inclinations and being homosexual; the latter requires specific action to be taken along the lines of the former. Even if someone is, for some reason, inclined toward such behavior, they still have the ability to choose otherwise. I acknowledge that in today's culture (in the US at least) the word abstinence is unpopular, but it's still an option.

0

oh... come on... will you tell me you never use the word hate to refer something you dislike?

Yes. Hate begets abuse, such as spousal and child abuse, burning crosses on laws, burning churches, dragging people behind cars, etc. Hate has no place in our society and under some circumstance there are laws against it.

0

Technically, a case could be made for choice. There is a difference between having homosexual inclinations and being homosexual; the latter requires specific action to be taken along the lines of the former. Even if someone is, for some reason, inclined toward such behavior, they still have the ability to choose otherwise. I acknowledge that in today's culture (in the US at least) the word abstinence is unpopular, but it's still an option.

You are confusing having sex and being gay. One can practice absistance and still be gay or not gay. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. [edit]well, except that gays have same sex and hets don't.[/edit]

0

I merely pointed out that a specific disease has its largest predominance among a specific subset of humankind...in this case, homosexuals. And yes, the Human Immunodeficiancy Virus can infect anyone...but it has its greatest instance of infection among Homosexual individuals, or the somewhat overlapping group of drug addicts who share contaminated needles. And there's been a huge flap about how Heterosexual AIDS will become common for over a decade now, possibly closer to two, yet the disease is still mostly limited to the group(s) named above.

And unless you're postulating genetic engineering or biowarfare, I'd say that mankind hasn't created any such diseases, but yes, there are a number of STDs which seem to have shown up first among normal (that is, heterosexual) interactions. Although it'd be interesting to do a study on the prevalence of those diseases among the two communities as well...Anyway, I was simply pointing out one disease, which has become such a political hotbutton that the ferver and vehemence behind it make it exceedingly well known.

EnderX nearly every disease has its own human subset that appears to contract the disease more oftern than others.. For example, the great influenza was a strange epidemic in that it was most prominent among the young and healthy..

Ah, some more incorrect diction on my part relating to the 'creation' of diseases.. bacteria, viruses, and all diseases come into existence in the same way that we have- through evolution.

0

about the origin of hiv

we cannot be entirely sure about the origin of hiv. i am apt to agree with josch. all i know for sure is that nichito is wrong and enderx too if he says that guys gave rise to this disease.

the two best theories i have heard are that it evolved from the big apes in central africa and that it was created by the humans in laboratories. they are best because one is probably close to true and the other is hilarious. what do you guys think.

created in a lab. acording to this theory the american government created it in order to ease the strain on their economy. when you are older than 65 you contribute nothing but take much. so they patiently wait for you to go to the doctor with decalcification of your bones or something, the doctor gives you an injection (vitamins he say) and two moths later you are no longer a part of the problem. unfortuanately the scientists got the calculations wrong and the virus got out of had. in fact one reason why the american government is contributing so heavily for the fight against HIV in africa is because of a guilty conscience.

theory two. eveolved from the big apes. although a long shot researchers have found a virus in some african primate (i cant remember which one) which does the exact same thing to this primate as what HIV does to us. as you no doubt know a virus is tissue specific and by association almost always host specific as well. the reason why hiv can only target humans is because no other cell except the human inducer T4 can serve as an effective host. later HIV can attack brain cells too but it is all about the human T4. now this virus found in this primate attack the T4 equivalent of this primate. if this long shot can hit then josch is most likely right in that it evolved natuarally like any other living organism.

0

I disagree with a lot of what's been said, but I don't have the time to post it all at once. But here's one point I would like to make about this theory that homosexuality can't be genetic as they would become distinct by default. The problem with this theory as that many gay men and lesbian women have hetrosexual marriages that produce children this is a well known fact.

There is a complex interaction of elements involved in the incubation of a foetus in the womb determining from the DNA blueprint to produce a male or female of the species dependant on testosterone levels and chromosomes etc. Surely, it cannot be surprising that this fine balance can sometimes be a little imperfect. Bare in mind who is making this objective decision that homosexuality is imperfect? as far as nature is concerned homosexuals are just as able to survive in the environment and propergate our species and many do successfully.

I beleive true homosexuality is in the early development of the brain and is not a concious choice. I do not beleive homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end or necessarily wrong or un-natural, to me they are just inevitable marginal cases. Nature is diverse and doesn't keep it's eggs in one basket and that's a good plan in my book.

0

@ hollystyles

according to wikipedia you are correct to the greater extend. especially the part of testosterone levels before birth.

what we have to keep in mind is that the only reason why all human bodies born does not result in female bodies is because testosterone prevents the secretion of estrogen which would then turn the baby into female. and many environmental factors can influence this testosterone level in the womb.

DNA does not read like a roadmap. if a significant chemical is either present or absent then a given protein will not be synthesized even though it is coded in the genotype(the dna for a given trait as opposed to the characteistic in the organism's body).

also remember that the mother's imune system attacks a male baby far more severly than it attacks a female baby. and one of the most prominent things which is not only attacked but causes these violent attacks is greatly responsible for preventing the baby turning into female. if her immune system continuously destroys this chemical(i cant remember what it is called) then what is there to prevent the development of female characteristics?

consider this. the absence of testosterone in the baby in the womb causes female like brains to develop. this is true for both females and males(i.e. a male body with a brain that has a lot in common with the brain of a female.). after or during puberty these sexual traits are merely reactivated and the male or female sexual instincts is activted. not developed. it had been developed in the womb already. this is true even if very large amounts of testosterone is now excreted in the male. it would merely result in a male which women would find very attractive but he himself would have the same instinct as the woman and find other men attractive. tests have shown that there differences between the brains of straight men and gay men.

it seems to me rather strange that God says all homosexual males are eternally cursed and should be stoned to death. i am going to take sides here and say that homosexuality is a design flaw which has its roots on counting on the testosterone in the womb solely to be responsible for sexual differentiation.

in addition what i said earlier. about homosexual genes would be weeded out of the genome is wrong too. at least to a considerable extend. i did not at the time know about genetic drift as opposed to mutation and natural selection. and as i have already said. recessive dna.

2

I find my self outraged that a thread like this ever began in such an "ENLIGHTENED" community. In the last few posts I have read things aperently writtin by educated individules who have some how reverted to a pre 1969 mentality , 1969 being the year the AMA or who ever it was decided that homosexuality was not a perversion nor a deviant sexual behaviour but a behaviour found in every species on the planet. they no longer treat the symptoms of homosexuality ,unfourtunatly many homosexuals do seek treatment due to depression and self loathing brought about by the closed minded bigotry we are awash in from the day we are born!
I am 47 years old and I have known bigotry all my life ( a trait found only in humans by the way) and have seen the damage it causes first hand. Every thing from murder to discrimination in housing employment , even getting picked last on the softball field, because this person or that is Gay! My question to all the bigots is why are you so interested in who or what I sleep with ,live with , or choose as a life partner ? and how is my sexuality affecting you or your life ,any more than yours affects mine? Learn to hate the haters they are the ones with the real issues.

Votes + Comments
Nicely put
Thank you.
0

I merely pointed out that a specific disease has its largest predominance among a specific subset of humankind...in this case, homosexuals. And yes, the Human Immunodeficiancy Virus can infect anyone...but it has its greatest instance of infection among Homosexual individuals, or the somewhat overlapping group of drug addicts who share contaminated needles. And there's been a huge flap about how Heterosexual AIDS will become common for over a decade now, possibly closer to two, yet the disease is still mostly limited to the group(s) named above.

And unless you're postulating genetic engineering or biowarfare, I'd say that mankind hasn't created any such diseases, but yes, there are a number of STDs which seem to have shown up first among normal (that is, heterosexual) interactions. Although it'd be interesting to do a study on the prevalence of those diseases among the two communities as well...Anyway, I was simply pointing out one disease, which has become such a political hotbutton that the ferver and vehemence behind it make it exceedingly well known.

if we are to follow your train of"logic" then as every one knows lesbians(also homosexuals by the way ) have the lowest occourance of HIV & AIDS of any population, therefore they must be the CHOSEN ONES

0

I find my self outraged that a thread like this ever began in such an "ENLIGHTENED" community. In the last few posts I have read things aperently writtin by educated individules who have some how reverted to a pre 1969 mentality , 1969 being the year the AMA or who ever it was decided that homosexuality was not a perversion nor a deviant sexual behaviour but a behaviour found in every species on the planet. they no longer treat the symptoms of homosexuality ,unfourtunatly many homosexuals do seek treatment due to depression and self loathing brought about by the closed minded bigotry we are awash in from the day we are born!
I am 47 years old and I have known bigotry all my life ( a trait found only in humans by the way) and have seen the damage it causes first hand. Every thing from murder to discrimination in housing employment , even getting picked last on the softball field, because this person or that is Gay! My question to all the bigots is why are you so interested in who or what I sleep with ,live with , or choose as a life partner ? and how is my sexuality affecting you or your life ,any more than yours affects mine? Learn to hate the haters they are the ones with the real issues.

Absolutely, well said.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.