i have that shirt.S3v3N wrote:
i support gay marriage.
as long as both chicks are hot.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
Poll
Are lesbians/gay men accepted equally?
| Lesbians are seen as more acceptable | 70% | 70% - 111 | ||||
| Gay men are seen as more acceptable | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Both are seen as equally acceptable | 8% | 8% - 14 | ||||
| Uhhh.... | 18% | 18% - 30 | ||||
| Total: 158 | ||||||
How about, "people once in the limelight but now out will do almost anything to get recognition again."
What about people such as Matthew Shephard, killed because he was gay?
I refuse to accept the argument that people choose to be gay to bring attention to themselves, or to stand out, be different, etc.
Interesting theory on the ruling class shit though.
What about people such as Matthew Shephard, killed because he was gay?
I refuse to accept the argument that people choose to be gay to bring attention to themselves, or to stand out, be different, etc.
Interesting theory on the ruling class shit though.
That's a more common reason for people to become bi. They double their chances that way.LaidBackNinja wrote:
And that brings us to the elusive 'other' reason people turn homosexual.Cougar wrote:
True dat homie.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I wouldn't hit Rosie O'Donnell with your dick. There's a reason why she became a lesbo.
They just ain't gettin any pussy, and know that they probably never will.
A friend of mine once joked that "bisexuals are one beer away from making love to a sheep."
It was a prejudiced remark for sure, but he was only joking.
You can't deny that at least SOME people choose to 'be gay' to bring attention to themselves. I'm not saying all homosexuals are like this, but I know for a FACT that at least some of them are.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I refuse to accept the argument that people choose to be gay to bring attention to themselves, or to stand out, be different, etc.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
because it's icky. and Jesus likes it when we curb stomp homos, it makes him hard.Turquoise wrote:
I just don't understand how a culture that prides itself on being free is so concerned with the activities of a small group that isn't breaking any laws through its lifestyle.
Whatever happened to the idea of the pursuit of happiness?
Cheap shot, but hilarious nonetheless... lolReciprocity wrote:
because it's icky. and Jesus likes it when we curb stomp homos, it makes him hard.Turquoise wrote:
I just don't understand how a culture that prides itself on being free is so concerned with the activities of a small group that isn't breaking any laws through its lifestyle.
Whatever happened to the idea of the pursuit of happiness?
What would Jesus brew?
Note that a lot of the 'attention' brought to gays is usually negative. Why would you WANT to be avoided by many people?
OK, by that logic, if nature intended us to be born mentally retarded we would be born with 4 brains to make up for it. Life isn't perfect. People are born with Down Syndrome, people are born with homosexuality. I obviously can't prove that people are born homosexual, it hasn't been proved yet and I'm not a neurologist. You equally can't prove that people aren't born homosexual. I could be wrong, maybe it is psychological. But your opinion is no more correct than mine.Cougar wrote:
There are males and females for a reason. I hear people use the arguement "they were born that way", or "its just the way they are". Umm no. If they were "born" that way, one would have been born a female and one a male, thats the way it works. If nature intended people to be homosexual, we would have evolved to have both a penis and a vagina.
I challenge anyone to show me something that proves that being homosexual is one of any reasons including but not limited too:
Natural.
Moral.
Spiritual.
Your comapring homosexuality to Down Syndrome....?Homeschtar wrote:
OK, by that logic, if nature intended us to be born mentally retarded we would be born with 4 brains to make up for it. Life isn't perfect. People are born with Down Syndrome, people are born with homosexuality. I obviously can't prove that people are born homosexual, it hasn't been proved yet and I'm not a neurologist. You equally can't prove that people aren't born homosexual. I could be wrong, maybe it is psychological. But your opinion is no more correct than mine.Cougar wrote:
There are males and females for a reason. I hear people use the arguement "they were born that way", or "its just the way they are". Umm no. If they were "born" that way, one would have been born a female and one a male, thats the way it works. If nature intended people to be homosexual, we would have evolved to have both a penis and a vagina.
I challenge anyone to show me something that proves that being homosexual is one of any reasons including but not limited too:
Natural.
Moral.
Spiritual.
Yeah, hows about....no.
It's hereditary. It gets passed on from parents to their children.
Oh wait, this isn't about Parkinson's disease.
Oh wait, this isn't about Parkinson's disease.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-02-06 18:55:01)
Yes, I am. You think that if they were born that way one would be female and one would be male, because being born homosexual does not make sense, since our purpose is to reproduce. Things don't always work out perfectly. People are born with diseases. Your logic isn't proof because it doesn't make sense that people are born with disorders, either. Hows about.... no. Good argument.Cougar wrote:
Your comapring homosexuality to Down Syndrome....?Homeschtar wrote:
OK, by that logic, if nature intended us to be born mentally retarded we would be born with 4 brains to make up for it. Life isn't perfect. People are born with Down Syndrome, people are born with homosexuality. I obviously can't prove that people are born homosexual, it hasn't been proved yet and I'm not a neurologist. You equally can't prove that people aren't born homosexual. I could be wrong, maybe it is psychological. But your opinion is no more correct than mine.Cougar wrote:
There are males and females for a reason. I hear people use the arguement "they were born that way", or "its just the way they are". Umm no. If they were "born" that way, one would have been born a female and one a male, thats the way it works. If nature intended people to be homosexual, we would have evolved to have both a penis and a vagina.
I challenge anyone to show me something that proves that being homosexual is one of any reasons including but not limited too:
Natural.
Moral.
Spiritual.
Yeah, hows about....no.
If being homosexual is a fad, why is it that it was talked about existing in the old testament. Hmmm, that would date back more than 2K years, and up until much more recent times, be reason for the death penalty. The same is quoted there for lesbians, and even bestiality.
So Cougar, are you telling me that you never mouthed off to your parents? If you say no, you are the single largest liar on this planet...next to GWB. In any case, you have earned the death penalty.
I can't believe that people would risk the death penalty for more than 2K years because it's a fad. As for more people being homosexual, I don't think so. It is now more accepted than before, but the numbers haven't really changed, you just have more people admitting their sexuality.
So Cougar, are you telling me that you never mouthed off to your parents? If you say no, you are the single largest liar on this planet...next to GWB. In any case, you have earned the death penalty.
I can't believe that people would risk the death penalty for more than 2K years because it's a fad. As for more people being homosexual, I don't think so. It is now more accepted than before, but the numbers haven't really changed, you just have more people admitting their sexuality.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2007-02-06 19:49:57)
I tell my mother to go fuck herself on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, I don't even consider her my mother. My real mother died, but thats another story. But basically what you are trying to tell me is that it is not a choice? Hmm, why do people still risk the death penalty to murder someone? Why did people risk going to bars during the American prohibition era, risking imprisonment over a glass of beer? Why did people risk being homosexuals knowing they could be killed? You tell me. But I'm pretty sure that wanting to kill someone isn't a genetic disorder. It's a choice.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
If being homosexual is a fad, why is it that it was talked about existing in the old testament. Hmmm, that would date back more than 2K years, and up until much more recent times, be reason for the death penalty. The same is quoted there for lesbians, and even bestiality.
So Cougar, are you telling me that you never mouthed off to your parents? If you say no, you are the single largest liar on this planet...next to GWB. In any case, you have earned the death penalty.
I can't believe that people would risk the death penalty for more than 2K years because it's a fad. As for more people being homosexual, I don't think so. It is now more accepted than before, but the numbers haven't really changed, you just have more people admitting their sexuality.
Ok, since we know Down Syndrome is cause by an extra chromosome in the DNA of the unlucky indivdual that has it, what say you, is the cause of homosexuality? Any proof of this logic? Any studies to back up this theory?Homeschtar wrote:
Yes, I am. You think that if they were born that way one would be female and one would be male, because being born homosexual does not make sense, since our purpose is to reproduce. Things don't always work out perfectly. People are born with diseases. Your logic isn't proof because it doesn't make sense that people are born with disorders, either. Hows about.... no. Good argument.
Also, ponder this, say we were not an adavanced civilization and that if a child was born with a disorder such as DS, MS, Bells Palsy, or just plain old retardation or physical defects, how long would that child survive in the wild? It wouldn't, which is natures way of weeding those types of problems out of the gene pool. Now what if a homosexual was born in the wild? Nothing. He just wouldn't breed. So how exactly are you comparing the two? They have nothing in common, not to mention any scientific proof to back that theory of yours up.
So it's "speculation" on your behalf, which incidentaly is the same type of theory I have. Furthermore, not only is your theory and mine biased because we are not homosexuals (I don't think your homo), they are personal opinions. This being said, I think we can all agree that your theory is no better than my own and your logic doesn't prove shit either. So GG.
You berate some one for using an example of retardation or other genetic diseases, and then use something like drinking as a reason why people would do something that wasn't considered proper? People had been drinking alcoholic beverages for thousands of years, and then some Bible thumping asshat decides that it can no longer happen. People were going to drink; drinking was also not a death penalty offense.
Murder has always been frowned upon, but killing is different than murder. Need we look at how many deaths occurred at the hands of those same people that said homosexuality is wrong? If you want to go that route, we could be here awhile.
As for it being a choice, I disagree. I've known several people that were homosexual from the time they were young kids, long before sexuality begins. They were not abused or otherwise mentally unstable. They have grown up just fine, finishing school, and otherwise leading productive lives. In fact, my neighbors next door are a perfect example. They are both gainfully employed, make good money, pay their taxes, buy goods and services, take care of their home and yard, and have a very nice boat on which they spend nearly ever weekend at Lake Powell. Were it not for the fact that their sexuality is one of preferring the same sex, they would be a neo-con's wet fucking dream of an American family.
Cougar, there are more cases of homosexuality in nature than you seem to understand. The reporting of it is rather low because of the religious implications.
Let's not forget, that fucking is not just about reproducing. That too has been found to be more prevalent in the wild than we though previously, again, because of religious implications. Animals fuck because they like to, not just to breed.
Murder has always been frowned upon, but killing is different than murder. Need we look at how many deaths occurred at the hands of those same people that said homosexuality is wrong? If you want to go that route, we could be here awhile.
As for it being a choice, I disagree. I've known several people that were homosexual from the time they were young kids, long before sexuality begins. They were not abused or otherwise mentally unstable. They have grown up just fine, finishing school, and otherwise leading productive lives. In fact, my neighbors next door are a perfect example. They are both gainfully employed, make good money, pay their taxes, buy goods and services, take care of their home and yard, and have a very nice boat on which they spend nearly ever weekend at Lake Powell. Were it not for the fact that their sexuality is one of preferring the same sex, they would be a neo-con's wet fucking dream of an American family.
Cougar, there are more cases of homosexuality in nature than you seem to understand. The reporting of it is rather low because of the religious implications.
Let's not forget, that fucking is not just about reproducing. That too has been found to be more prevalent in the wild than we though previously, again, because of religious implications. Animals fuck because they like to, not just to breed.
Yeah? You've been berating every example I've come up with so far, so why either bother with you? You're obviously to stubborn and hardheaded to allow anyone to have an opinion of there own. And so fucking what if people have been drinking and killing for thousands of years? People have been doing EVERYTHING for hundreds of thousands of years, excluding activities involving technology of course. So YOU explain to me what kind of example I should use. You cannot.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You berate some one for using an example of retardation or other genetic diseases, and then use something like drinking as a reason why people would do something that wasn't considered proper? People had been drinking alcoholic beverages for thousands of years, and then some Bible thumping asshat decides that it can no longer happen. People were going to drink; drinking was also not a death penalty offense.
Fucking each other in the ass has also been frowned upon, but being genuinely gay is different I suppose. I'm here for another 6 hours, lets roll baby.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Murder has always been frowned upon, but killing is different than murder. Need we look at how many deaths occurred at the hands of those same people that said homosexuality is wrong? If you want to go that route, we could be here awhile.
Ever think the fact the kid acted like a fairy his whole life might have contributed to his choice in sexuality?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
As for it being a choice, I disagree. I've known several people that were homosexual from the time they were young kids, long before sexuality begins. They were not abused or otherwise mentally unstable. They have grown up just fine, finishing school, and otherwise leading productive lives. In fact, my neighbors next door are a perfect example. They are both gainfully employed, make good money, pay their taxes, buy goods and services, take care of their home and yard, and have a very nice boat on which they spend nearly ever weekend at Lake Powell. Were it not for the fact that their sexuality is one of preferring the same sex, they would be a neo-con's wet fucking dream of an American family.
Show me.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Cougar, there are more cases of homosexuality in nature than you seem to understand. The reporting of it is rather low because of the religious implications.
The fact that sex feels good is natures way of making animals want to do it, thus reproducing. Same with humans, do you think the teenager going through puberty wants to fuck because he's concerned about reproducing, or because he knows it's going to feel good? It's the reward for reproducing.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Let's not forget, that fucking is not just about reproducing. That too has been found to be more prevalent in the wild than we though previously, again, because of religious implications. Animals fuck because they like to, not just to breed.
I've not berated a single thing you said. You told some one that they were stupid for comparing something like Down Syndrome to homosexuality. This is DEBATE & Serious Talk. You are more than entitled to your opinions, but quick being a dick to others who have their own ideas and trying to use examples of things that exist in nature.Cougar wrote:
Yeah? You've been berating every example I've come up with so far, so why either bother with you? You're obviously to stubborn and hardheaded to allow anyone to have an opinion of there own. And so fucking what if people have been drinking and killing for thousands of years? People have been doing EVERYTHING for hundreds of thousands of years, excluding activities involving technology of course. So YOU explain to me what kind of example I should use. You cannot.
By whose standards? Those that wrote the Bible? As noted, it has been accepted within other cultures. Are you telling me that all those other cultures are wrong because you happened to have been raised in one that wasn't in agreement. Again, it goes back to perception.Cougar wrote:
Fucking each other in the ass has also been frowned upon, but being genuinely gay is different I suppose. I'm here for another 6 hours, lets roll baby.
You're missing the point. Why would a child that is too young to understand the concept of sexuality even act in this manner if it wasn't something that seemed normal or natural for them?Cougar wrote:
Ever think the fact the kid acted like a fairy his whole life might have contributed to his choice in sexuality?
Okay, here you go. Are you going to tell me National Geographic is a commie liberal site with an agenda?Cougar wrote:
Show me.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nimal.html
See above National Geographic article. Some of these animals acted in very human way, created bonds that go beyond sexual activity. Yes, we have sex because it feels good, but it goes beyond reproducing. That can be the end result of this activity, but is not the only reason or means for which it exists. While animals do not have the means to control procreation like we do (birth control pills, condoms, etc.) why do humans choose to form relationships, including getting married, and then choose not to have children? Why do we have abortions? Could it be that people have sex for reasons other than procreation? Have you ever had sex with some one that you cared about, but didn't want that to turn into children? Have you ever had sex with some one that you didn't care about, just to get off? Please, if anything you are trying to dumb down the human species into the animal kingdom.Cougar wrote:
The fact that sex feels good is natures way of making animals want to do it, thus reproducing. Same with humans, do you think the teenager going through puberty wants to fuck because he's concerned about reproducing, or because he knows it's going to feel good? It's the reward for reproducing.
I will say this one time, and one time only. Sex is a means of reproduction, but IS NOT the only reason why humans, and even animals, engage in sexual activity.
The conversation was quite mature and open-minded until you came in here with the sole intention to stir shit up. Also, trust me when I say I'm not being a dick, because I told some people last night I'd keep the tude on the DL, but your pushing my buttons.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
This is DEBATE & Serious Talk. You are more than entitled to your opinions, but quick being a dick to others who have their own ideas and trying to use examples of things that exist in nature.
By whose standards? Those that wrote the Bible? As noted, it has been accepted within other cultures. Are you telling me that alCougar wrote:
Fucking each other in the ass has also been frowned upon, but being genuinely gay is different I suppose. I'm here for another 6 hours, lets roll baby.
You know what, screw it. You're not worth my time. Everything I say, you take as an insult or as myself being a dickhead. I can show you a dickhead, but unfortunately I probably wouldn't be around much longer. When I can't even get past the first paragraph of your reply because you're such a fucking dumbass, it's time for me to exit the debate.
If you want to be a fag, then go be a fag. This subject is ragged out, just as your flawed logic is.
Cougar has left the building!!
Evidence of intention. Intention that forces other users out of the conversation. Conversations that were going fine until said user(s) decide to ruin it.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Cougar has left the building!!
Way to break my streak of level headed debate, douchebag.
Back to flaming morons in the Junk Drawer.
LatersCougar wrote:
...Back to flaming morons in the Junk Drawer.
Bye bye now.
Show me where I did any such thing. Show me where I did anything but provide logic and evidence to counter your points.Cougar wrote:
Evidence of intention. Intention that forces other users out of the conversation. Conversations that were going fine until said user(s) decide to ruin it.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Cougar has left the building!!
Way to break my streak of level headed debate, douchebag.
Back to flaming morons in the Junk Drawer.
You may be too young to remember, but whenever Elvis entered or left the building an announcement was made. The comment was more so that you bailed out on the conversation. You were the one that got flustered claiming I was doing all these things that I wasn't doing.
Your problem stems from the fact that I can muster a coherent arguement, including facts, to counter what you have said...and you just flat out don't like it. If flaming other people in the Junk Drawer is the level of conversation you are capable of holding, by all means, please stay there.
No, as I said before, I'm not a neurologist, a psychologist, whatever.Cougar wrote:
Ok, since we know Down Syndrome is cause by an extra chromosome in the DNA of the unlucky indivdual that has it, what say you, is the cause of homosexuality? Any proof of this logic? Any studies to back up this theory?
I was just using it as an example to show that nature isn't perfect, and homosexuality could just be a defect that someone is born with. And also, I don't have a theory. I was just arguing against your point of view. I personally doubt that it's a concious decision, but I really don't know so I don't rule it out.Cougar wrote:
Also, ponder this, say we were not an adavanced civilization and that if a child was born with a disorder such as DS, MS, Bells Palsy, or just plain old retardation or physical defects, how long would that child survive in the wild? It wouldn't, which is natures way of weeding those types of problems out of the gene pool. Now what if a homosexual was born in the wild? Nothing. He just wouldn't breed. So how exactly are you comparing the two? They have nothing in common, not to mention any scientific proof to back that theory of yours up.
Right. As I said above, no theory. It is speculation. Just arguing for the sake of it. Isn't that what D&ST is for?Cougar wrote:
So it's "speculation" on your behalf, which incidentaly is the same type of theory I have. Furthermore, not only is your theory and mine biased because we are not homosexuals (I don't think your homo), they are personal opinions. This being said, I think we can all agree that your theory is no better than my own and your logic doesn't prove shit either. So GG.
Oh, and on topic, lesbians are more accepted.
Last edited by Homeschtar (2007-02-06 22:30:36)
Shut the fuck up.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
blah blah blahCougar wrote:
Evidence of intention. Intention that forces other users out of the conversation. Conversations that were going fine until said user(s) decide to ruin it.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Cougar has left the building!!
Way to break my streak of level headed debate, douchebag.
Back to flaming morons in the Junk Drawer.
Right. Both "theory's" are nothing but speculation, which was what I was getting at. However, part of debating is giving reasons for why you think your opinion is better than the other by showing through logic, evidence or common sense. However, this issue is not really one that has produced concrete evidence in my opinion and the only way to know for sure would to be gay. Of course, this fact is made more complicated by the fact that all people are different and 5 people are going to give you 5 different answers as to why they are gay.Homeschtar wrote:
No, as I said before, I'm not a neurologist, a psychologist, whatever.Cougar wrote:
Ok, since we know Down Syndrome is cause by an extra chromosome in the DNA of the unlucky indivdual that has it, what say you, is the cause of homosexuality? Any proof of this logic? Any studies to back up this theory?I was just using it as an example to show that nature isn't perfect, and homosexuality could just be a defect that someone is born with. And also, I don't have a theory. I was just arguing against your point of view. I personally doubt that it's a concious decision, but I really don't know so I don't rule it out.Cougar wrote:
Also, ponder this, say we were not an adavanced civilization and that if a child was born with a disorder such as DS, MS, Bells Palsy, or just plain old retardation or physical defects, how long would that child survive in the wild? It wouldn't, which is natures way of weeding those types of problems out of the gene pool. Now what if a homosexual was born in the wild? Nothing. He just wouldn't breed. So how exactly are you comparing the two? They have nothing in common, not to mention any scientific proof to back that theory of yours up.Right. As I said above, no theory. It is speculation. Just arguing for the sake of it. Isn't that what D&ST is for?Cougar wrote:
So it's "speculation" on your behalf, which incidentaly is the same type of theory I have. Furthermore, not only is your theory and mine biased because we are not homosexuals (I don't think your homo), they are personal opinions. This being said, I think we can all agree that your theory is no better than my own and your logic doesn't prove shit either. So GG.
Oh, and on topic, lesbians are more accepted.
And yes, hot lesbians are accpetable IMHO, but thats only because I wish I was between them.
Anything else you want to add Dr. Phil. . . .topal63 wrote:
It is simple logic for any of you stuck on an absolute...
If you make the claim that something is NOT natural; then it cannot be found in nature. Over, done, out, & stop with your MORONIC misuse of logic you don't even understand or words you cannot use properly.
If it is found or demonstrated to exist in nature then it is natural (it already has; see other posts).
If you are stuck on an absolute, then suck on this:
If nature ABSOLUTELY prohibited homosexuality then it would NOT exist. Obviously a small percentage of males that do not reproduce does NOT affect the general population (or the genome / gene pool / into the next or subsequent generations).
1/1000 newborns have 3 to 5 chromosomes XXY-XXXXY. This type of anomaly often leads to male infertility - which of course – is unintended by mindless NATURE; but is none the less NATURAL.
Fact: some heterosexual men are infertile and cannot pass on their genes; mindless nature does not care.
Fact: some homosexual men do pass on their genes; mindless nature does not care.
ALSO HOMESEXUALITY IS NOT EITHER A DEFECT or SOMETHING PASSED ON (THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY GENE). There is not a single piece of scientific evidence to suggest or support any errant conclusion that it could somehow be inherited genetically.
Homosexuality has already been accurately defined, more or less, in other posts as an EXPRESSION of your genetic makeup. In addition in some socities (past; maybe present as well) Male to Male bonding occurs with rites of passage; etc; that invlove what you would consider homosexual behavior (even though they wouldn't); and they have wives as well.
A man has both hormones: estrogen and testosterone. A female has both hormones: estrogen and testosterone. When your fetus develops; prior to sexual differentiation; your gonads are undefined you are neither female nor male; and it does not matter whether you're XX female or XY male - at this point. The application of hormones causes your undifferentiated gonads to become more less MALE-NESS or more or less FEMALE-NESS. It is not a perfect differentiation - it is a continuum. That is why it is more appropriate to NOT suggest theses absolutes: Male & Female. That is a subjective overall evaluation of some-ones apparent MALE-NESS or FEMAL-NESS.
In addition it is not impossible to have some features present from both sexes; a vagina and a penis simultaneously: i.e. the hermaphrodite.
The sexual continuum is more subtle when considering the concept of genetic expression. Both apparent males & females are in possession of both these hormones that exist in a ratio: estrogen and testosterone. This chemical ratio is not perfect nor is it the same from female to female; or male to male. It effects the development of the fetus (genetic expression; and not just the gonads; other parts as well; your brain & your body; this is sexual differentiation; it is not limited to the gonads); and it effects sexual development during puberty. This is what an adult sexual being is: a complexly developed genetic expression / chemical-balance - continuum.
People are gay for two reasons:
1.) Their sexual continuum does not fall into an ABSOLUTE category; because that doesn't exist. People are NOT GENETICALLY-MADE that way from the beginning at fertilization - the chemical makeup of their being during various stages of development genetic expression (fetus, puberty, adult sexuality) has made them that way.
2.) The human mind is malleable; and social sexual morays are NOT ABSOLUTE either; in societies (past or present).
I think you just disproved my view and proved my view at the same time......as well as everyone elses.topal63 wrote:
A SHITLOAD OF STUFF.
I'm.......wow. Good job. +1