Old 27th February 2006, 02:27   #121
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
The heroin thing is understandable, yes (although due to local issues I have a pretty irrational hatred toward that drug in particular).

I know a few "happy" (or at least as happy and non-dysfunctional as any straight person, at least!) gay people (certainly far, far outnumbering the type that you've come into such contact with), but it's not like I can introduce them to you! There was one on this forum a while back, but I don't think it would be fair to drag him into this.

I think your experiences are clouding your judgement on this issue, still, though (and to be fair, you have said that this is all based upon your experiences). My personal feeling is that the behaviours (and particular their prevalence through the community that arised from necessity) that you find questionable are due largely to marginalisation of homosexuals in society — as they become more widely-accepted, so their behaviours become less extreme. I'm from a younger generation than you, so this would — at least in part — explain our differences in experience.

Sorry to hear about your friend, too, incidentally.
I think that I can count on most of the people in this forum to argue with me. I have more than your lifetime to have pondered these things and more than 20 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

Now, I watch my friends die and their children being raised without good parenting. Life is like being the ancient mariner, a mistake is deadly.

Life doesn't forgive mistakes.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 08:27   #122
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I just don't consider being gay a "mistake". How you act upon it can be a mistake, but dating and loving people of the same sex, so long as one is sensible about it, is not one. People act more radically when they're treated as radicals, when they're shunned from society. This leads to more of these "mistakes".

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 09:36   #123
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4621

Overall, gonorrhea rates have fallen slightly since 2000, both nationally and in Oregon. Rates among men who have sex with men, however, are up. According to the state health department, gay and bisexual men made up more than half of males with gonorrhea who were interviewed by health workers in 2002.

0.5% of the population and half the gonorrhea. Are these numbers plain enough?. How many of the other half didn't admit being gay?.

And that's just the clap..... How does this fit into your theory about safe sex and loving relationships?.

"Mistake" might not be a strong enough word.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 27th February 2006 at 09:52.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 10:07   #124
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
And that's just the clap..... How does this fit into your theory about safe sex and loving relationships?.
Like most irrelevant things do . These things spread because people are careless (or occasionally just unlucky), not because they're gay. Being gay just makes being careless more costly.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 13:45   #125
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
From the article above:

"Guys we're seeing (from Club Portland) are saying 10, 15, 20 anonymous partners, sometimes all in the same night," says CAP's Philip Knowlton, whose organization also counsels STD patients."

Most straights don't have that many partners in a lifetime. How could you call this luck?. The gays I have met have been one thing. This includes my dead friend..... promiscuous....

And guess what?. Their disease statistics bear that out.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 14:18   #126
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Not convinced it'll work that that in the long term. I am convinced that marginalising homosexuals does make the problem worse.

I think we have irreconcilable differences of opinion on this matter and arguing is getting kinda circular, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 15:32   #127
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Not convinced it'll work that that in the long term. I am convinced that marginalising homosexuals does make the problem worse.
Yeah, that must be the problem. They are so oppressed that they have to go down to Club Portland for some group sex. It couldn't be their own problem. It's because we picked on them. Yeah right.

And you'll notice with the acceptance that they have found, that the disease numbers keep going up, when for the rest of us it's going down.

What other minority is going to tell me today what reprehensible conduct is justified because they are in some way oppressed?.

I tolerate, I do not approve.

These guys don't want to get married. They want approval to play in the steam room.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 27th February 2006 at 15:49.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 16:27   #128
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2006, 18:19   #129
seraphim
Senior Member
 
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4621

Overall, gonorrhea rates have fallen slightly since 2000, both nationally and in Oregon. Rates among men who have sex with men, however, are up. According to the state health department, gay and bisexual men made up more than half of males with gonorrhea who were interviewed by health workers in 2002.

0.5% of the population and half the gonorrhea. Are these numbers plain enough?. How many of the other half didn't admit being gay?.

And that's just the clap..... How does this fit into your theory about safe sex and loving relationships?.

"Mistake" might not be a strong enough word.
Unprotected gay sex is inherently more dangerous. Instead of the guy who passes the disease (in this case, lets use AIDS, since it is more common among gay men) to the girl through conformist standard sex, both men are engaged in penetration, so even if one of them has a disease, they both end up with it, rather than the guy who rarely contracts it from the girl.


-------

And which guy doesn't lie about sex partners? The article is passing on that information via hearsay, without actual proof. And who can seriously stand to have sex 20 times in 1 night?

-------

And what does all of this have to do with glbt's being denied the right to marry whomever they love?
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 01:15   #130
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by seraphim
And what does all of this have to do with glbt's being denied the right to marry whomever they love?
BECAUSE:

Quote:
Originally posted by seraphim
Unprotected gay sex is inherently more dangerous. Instead of the guy who passes the disease (in this case, lets use AIDS, since it is more common among gay men) to the girl through conformist standard sex, both men are engaged in penetration, so even if one of them has a disease, they both end up with it, rather than the guy who rarely contracts it from the girl.
And because gays are often bi, this can end up in your bedroom. Why do you think the Iranians hang people over it?.

I support civil rights and think gays have the right to be gay. I'm stopping short of validating this as "marriage".

Civil rights aside, I think you could make a good case that this activity, expecially in places like Club Portland should be outright illegal.

Even in liberal Oregon, these guys couldn't make their case for marriage. And the bible thumpers weren't the ones that said no. It was pretty much everybody.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 01:31   #131
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
So you don't think it's plausible that letting them get married would decrease the amount of sex partners they have? You'd still only be able to marry one person.


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 01:35   #132
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Everything I've read says that the monogamous gay relationships are even more dangerous than the group sex.

The reason is that they quit having protected sex with their infected monogamous partners and that often one partner or the other is not monogamous. This isn't uncommon in heterosexual couples either. It's just a lot less likely for straights to be infected with STDs.... and likes been said.... it's easier to transmit these diseases by risky sexual practices.

Also, because these guys have many more sexual partners than the rest of us, Hepatitis C is very common. You can get that from a kiss. Crabs and scabies are pretty common too, and that doesn't require more than quite casual contact.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 28th February 2006 at 01:56.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 09:46   #133
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Well, I sure hope they ban smoking and drinking first.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 10:03   #134
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I don't think being gay should be banned. That would be a dangerous situation from the point of civil liberties. I certainly will stand for the right to be gay and against any law that descriminates against them for their sexual preference, no matter how depraved I think their sexual appetites are.

That isn't what the gays are screaming about here in Oregon. They want the rest of us to say this is "peachy, lovely, fine, great" and just another lifestyle choice. They want it taught in the schools that way.

Uh no....
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 10:30   #135
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Hmm. I personally think that the more people treat it like that, the more it will become that way. Things extremise when they're taboo.

But, as I said, I think we have differences of opinion that we won't get over here, so arguing doesn't really have much point.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 17:01   #136
seraphim
Senior Member
 
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 141
edit: this thread is really a pointless argument.
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 18:36   #137
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
xzxzzx's patented viewpoint-guaranteed-to-piss-both-sides-off:

People who are purely gay (homosexual, not bisexual) based on genetics have a mental or genetic disorder, just as someone who had no sex drive would.

The basic biological point of sex is to create offspring, and gay sex doesn't do that.

However, that does not mean that you can discriminate against them, just as you shouldn't discriminate against someone who had an uncontrollable irrational fear, or likewise — it's not hurting anyone.

Of course, it gets more complicated than that because sexual choices affect quite a bit in one's life, but the basic point is the same.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 19:20   #138
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
that didn't piss me off...?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 19:21   #139
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
The problem with "disorder" is it implies negative connotations (bear in mind that basically any preference can be stated as a disorder of some kind). Beyond that, yes, that's basically correct.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 19:39   #140
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
People who are purely gay (homosexual, not bisexual) based on geneticsr
Where is this gay gene? Has anyone found it yet?


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 19:59   #141
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
xzxzzx's patented viewpoint-guaranteed-to-piss-both-sides-off:

People who are purely gay (homosexual, not bisexual) based on genetics have a mental or genetic disorder, just as someone who had no sex drive would.

The basic biological point of sex is to create offspring, and gay sex doesn't do that.

However, that does not mean that you can discriminate against them, just as you shouldn't discriminate against someone who had an uncontrollable irrational fear, or likewise &mdash; it's not hurting anyone.

Of course, it gets more complicated than that because sexual choices affect quite a bit in one's life, but the basic point is the same.
Ok, so we should make special allowances for someone that has a mental condition?

How about the psychopath that rapes and murders all the little girls in his neighborhood? He's got a mental disorder, so its OK.

How about the asshat that has 197 cats living in his house... the stench is so bad from feces and dead cats he has to live in his garage. Oh, but that's OK, he's got mental problems.

How about the fags that have a gangbang in the public restroom at mile-marker 300? Its Ok that my kid walks in and sees that, 'cuz they got mental problems, right?

FUCK THAT!

They can all live happily ever after, as long as they don't impinge on anyone's rights... sadly they don't and that is the problem.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with anyone else's lifestyle as long as they didn't flaunt it. When people dress in g-strings and feathers and parade down Main Street USA to try to get some respect from the 'normal' people, they are not going to get very far. If the majority of the gays are not like that, then why do they tolerate it?

When someone infringes upon my rights to raise my children in what I consider to be a moral fashion, I will fight them every inch of the way.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2006, 20:05   #142
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
If the majority of the gays are not like that, then why do they tolerate it?
For the same reason the majority of Christians tolerate the insane fundamentalists?


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 01:05   #143
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by LuigiHann
For the same reason the majority of Christians tolerate the insane fundamentalists?
Who tolerates them?. And you sure as hell won't find approval or even much acceptance. These ideas would give you a ride to the door by the usher in our major churches. You'd be better off being gay. Then people would just pray for you.

Be gay... ok ... we'll pray for ya....be an abortion clinic bomber or advocate violence... later n'dude.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 1st March 2006 at 01:44.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 02:24   #144
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
Oh, I didn't mean those guys. I just meant the Christians who dominate the media with the demands that Creationism be taught in schools, etc, that make most non-Christians dislike Christians.


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 02:27   #145
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Do you realise how few of them there actually are?. They get press because they are sensational and good news stories for a liberal press. People that hate christians have been watching too much TV.

When Pat Robertson fills an auditorium, there are thousands of times more christians that think he's a nut. A good game show does as well. A basketball game does better.

When you look around 1 in 5 of the people you are looking at is a practicing christian, and you probably didn't even know. They aren't doing a show or at one. They are too busy trying to find their own relationship with God. For most faiths evangelism is more or less against the rules. They prefer to win by attrition. Even the baptists, who are among the most conservative christians aren't on TV.

That's why they call these guys "TV evangelists". Because they only exist on the tube. The beliefs of most christians wouldn't make a good TV show.... too boring.... and probably just about what anyone else thinks on most issues.

For my own view on homosexuality, it has no religious conviction at all. My concern is a practical one, as is my concern about heterosexual promiscuity.

Frankly, I wish that there was no "down side" to sex.... but that's not the case.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 1st March 2006 at 03:16.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 03:46   #146
mrthchemp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Holy Blackburn Lancashire!
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
Frankly, I wish that there was no "down side" to sex.... but that's not the case.
well yeah. a fair few of the posts in this thread bear that out

"Getting stoned is wonderful and we are wired up for it."
mrthchemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 14:00   #147
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by LuigiHann
For the same reason the majority of Christians tolerate the insane fundamentalists?
Maybe the fundimentalists are tolerated because they are not infringing on other's rights?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 15:51   #148
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
that didn't piss me off...?
Oh. Well, good.

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
The problem with "disorder" is it implies negative connotations (bear in mind that basically any preference can be stated as a disorder of some kind). Beyond that, yes, that's basically correct.
I prefer chocolate cakes, because I associate them with a semi-rare treat (scarcity == value), and because they contain caffeine and other ingrediants which elevate mood and increase energy. Disorder?

No, of course not. Even those things which I "don't like" (tomatoes, for example... I hate tomatoes!) can be changed simply by forcing myself to eat them &mdash; eventually my brain gets the idea and stops thinking this is a poisonous/negative thing to eat. Choice.

Being gay is a negative thing (if it's uncontrollable), because you're not having offspring, and not because you don't want to (choice!), but because you aren't interested in the biological path which is supposed to get you there (disorder!).

But there's nothing wrong with that. Very mentally healthy people are very rare, and just about everyone's got a quirk about themselves which could be described as a disorder. That doesn't mean you need to do anything about them, if they don't want to, unless it harms another.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Where is this gay gene? Has anyone found it yet?
Don't think so. But the point remains the same either way. If it's genetics-based, then it's a genetic disorder, and if it's upbringing-based, then it's a mental disorder, and if it's a choice, then it's a choice.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Ok, so we should make special allowances for someone that has a mental condition?
No. But we shouldn't make special problems for them, either.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
How about the psychopath that rapes and murders all the little girls in his neighborhood? He's got a mental disorder, so its OK.
That's obviously illegal.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
How about the asshat that has 197 cats living in his house... the stench is so bad from feces and dead cats he has to live in his garage. Oh, but that's OK, he's got mental problems.
That's also illegal.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
How about the fags that have a gangbang in the public restroom at mile-marker 300? Its Ok that my kid walks in and sees that, 'cuz they got mental problems, right?
And that's illegal too.

They're all illegal because they effect other people (or animals).

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
They can all live happily ever after, as long as they don't impinge on anyone's rights... sadly they don't and that is the problem.
I don't understand your point.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I don't think anyone would have a problem with anyone else's lifestyle as long as they didn't flaunt it. When people dress in g-strings and feathers and parade down Main Street USA to try to get some respect from the 'normal' people, they are not going to get very far. If the majority of the gays are not like that, then why do they tolerate it?
They tolerate it just like heterosexual ones do, because this country is too full of pansy-ass politically correct idiots. (Er, no offense/pun/whatever intended.)

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 16:19   #149
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Being gay is a negative thing (if it's uncontrollable), because you're not having offspring, and not because you don't want to (choice!), but because you aren't interested in the biological path which is supposed to get you there (disorder!).
I meant in terms of sex, sorry. Gentlemen don't prefer blondes because they're more virile, from any research I've heard of, for example. Although, of course, that one could be societal. Good examples is hard to find, yo.

I'm not a big fan of the term "mentally healthy", though. Simply because anyone who was completely "mentally healthy" likely wouldn't be for very long.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
But there's nothing wrong with that. Very mentally healthy people are very rare, and just about everyone's got a quirk about themselves which could be described as a disorder. That doesn't mean you need to do anything about them, if they don't want to, unless it harms another.
Well, yes. Even then, though, taking a risk where all involved who can be affected understand the risks and consequences should be allowed. I think you agree with that, just bringing clarification there.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
They tolerate it just like heterosexual ones do, because this country is too full of pansy-ass politically correct idiots.
And because it's not harming anyone. Freedom of expression is an extension of freedom of speech, and so long as that doesn't harm anyone (orgies in public could certainly be judged as mentally harmful, but if you consider that the same as someone being openly-gay, you probably have more issues than you realise) it should be allowed, in my view.

I'm not personally sure where the politically-correct idiots come into this discussion. You're free to deride gays, but it's a difficult thing to do in rational terms without referring to specific groups which are specifically stupid (those who go around having unprotected gay sex with multiple partners would probably be a good example of people who are asking for criticism).

As for the mental/genetic basis of homosexuality, studies have shown that homosexual males are typically physiologically different to heterosexual males (as opposed to females, which I don't know of any findings about). There is also a correlation between orientation and some developments in the womb. I don't think that a "gay gene" is likely to be found, however, it's more likely to be a combination of factors, meaning it's hard to place in terms of genetics.

The prevailing thought is that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is a biological development, although there's considerable questions about whether it develops genetically, in the womb, or during life.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 16:35   #150
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
They're all illegal because they effect other people (or animals).

I don't understand your point.
You stated my point - but you don't understand it? I feel that they are infringing on my rights when the flaunt their gayness (gayity? ), so why should we make exceptions for them?

Some say repressing them will make them bolder. Maybe giving them the extra inch will make them want a mile more.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 20:01   #151
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
I feel that they are infringing on my rights when the flaunt their gayness (gayity? ), so why should we make exceptions for them?
What right would that be, exactly?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2006, 20:07   #152
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
Everybody has the right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't like.
Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.
Rockouthippy was making more progress with his STD argument.


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 08:45   #153
Spazz333
Major Dude
 
Spazz333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
What right would that be, exactly?
Something like the right to not be offended by open, flaming heterosexuals, like at every sporting event ever

Personally I'd rather be offended than deathly afraid to open my mouth in fear of offending someone.

Spazz333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 14:44   #154
seraphim
Senior Member
 
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
You stated my point - but you don't understand it? I feel that they are infringing on my rights when the flaunt their gayness (gayity? ), so why should we make exceptions for them?

Some say repressing them will make them bolder. Maybe giving them the extra inch will make them want a mile more.
Well, i don't like guys, so lets take them all out of my sight and outlaw being male
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 15:11   #155
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
I meant in terms of sex, sorry. Gentlemen don't prefer blondes because they're more virile, from any research I've heard of, for example. Although, of course, that one could be societal. Good examples is hard to find, yo.
The most attractive women to me are those who look Scandinavian - I'm half-Danish. Surprise?

You can't describe a semi-baseless preference with little to no genetic/evolutionary effect as a disorder. If you look at an attractive woman with blond hair, and then she dies her hair black, you're not going to suddenly think she's not attractive, right?

Most/many of the things that men find attractive in women (and vice-versa) can be directly traced to genetic/evolutionary reasons:
  • plenty of muscle == had enough to eat/good protector/etc
  • lack of disfiguring scars == capable to defending him/herself
  • tall == plenty to eat as a child/strong genes
  • confidence == alpha male
  • even "showing affection" == likely to stick around to rear children
  • etc
  • etc
  • ad nausium
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
I'm not a big fan of the term "mentally healthy", though. Simply because anyone who was completely "mentally healthy" likely wouldn't be for very long.
Well, sure, it's impossible to define in practice. Think of it as a metaterm.

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Well, yes. Even then, though, taking a risk where all involved who can be affected understand the risks and consequences should be allowed. I think you agree with that, just bringing clarification there.
Sure. "Another", in this context, meaning roughly "someone who didn't agree to participate".

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
And because it's not harming anyone. Freedom of expression is an extension of freedom of speech, and so long as that doesn't harm anyone (orgies in public could certainly be judged as mentally harmful, but if you consider that the same as someone being openly-gay, you probably have more issues than you realise) it should be allowed, in my view.

I'm not personally sure where the politically-correct idiots come into this discussion. You're free to deride gays, but it's a difficult thing to do in rational terms without referring to specific groups which are specifically stupid (those who go around having unprotected gay sex with multiple partners would probably be a good example of people who are asking for criticism).
There's a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of expression wherever and whenever you want, and even more difference when compared against "freedom to express without disagreement". A "gay pride" parade is all well and good, but that doesn't mean you have to come and cheer for it as I think many "politically correct" people feel like they do.

I'm not deriding anyone, really.

I've heard this described as "an old poem":

There is so much bad in the best of us
And so much good in the worst of us
That it ill behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
As for the mental/genetic basis of homosexuality, studies have shown that homosexual males are typically physiologically different to heterosexual males (as opposed to females, which I don't know of any findings about). There is also a correlation between orientation and some developments in the womb. I don't think that a "gay gene" is likely to be found, however, it's more likely to be a combination of factors, meaning it's hard to place in terms of genetics.

The prevailing thought is that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is a biological development, although there's considerable questions about whether it develops genetically, in the womb, or during life.
Interesting. My basic point is that if it isn't a choice, and it's destructive to one's ability to procreate, then it's a disorder.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
You stated my point - but you don't understand it? I feel that they are infringing on my rights when the flaunt their gayness (gayity? ), so why should we make exceptions for them?
You feel you have a right to not know if others are gay who are around you?

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Some say repressing them will make them bolder. Maybe giving them the extra inch will make them want a mile more.
Humans are kind of funny. Perceived threats to one's freedom, or particularly the freedom of one's comrades is often viewed as more important that one's own life. You can't repress without getting pushed back on. But that doesn't mean you have to approve. It doesn't mean that indecent behavior should now be allowed in public.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 15:38   #156
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
There's a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of expression wherever and whenever you want, and even more difference when compared against "freedom to express without disagreement". A "gay pride" parade is all well and good, but that doesn't mean you have to come and cheer for it as I think many "politically correct" people feel like they do.
Well, yes, you should feel no compulsion to participate in any movement. I get the feeling a lot of people do it to ease their own guilt, more than just being "politically correct". Probably undeserved guilt, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Interesting. My basic point is that if it isn't a choice, and it's destructive to one's ability to procreate, then it's a disorder.
I don't think there's a particular problem with that, as it is. The main problem is that "disorder", like oh-so-many words, can have negative connotations. If you get brought up on it, I'd expect that 9 times out of 10 it'd be someone taking offence at what you're (probably unintentionally) implying by your use of language, rather than the substance of your point.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
It doesn't mean that indecent behavior should now be allowed in public.
I think this pretty much hinges around some people having different opinions of "indecent behaviour". I personally don't see a good reason to distinguish between straight people and gay people doing the same thing, but that's probably not a universal opinion.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 16:11   #157
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Humans are kind of funny. Perceived threats to one's freedom, or particularly the freedom of one's comrades is often viewed as more important that one's own life. You can't repress without getting pushed back on. But that doesn't mean you have to approve. It doesn't mean that indecent behavior should now be allowed in public.
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
I think this pretty much hinges around some people having different opinions of "indecent behaviour". I personally don't see a good reason to distinguish between straight people and gay people doing the same thing, but that's probably not a universal opinion.
While I agree that indecent behavior in public by anyone is wrong, I would venture to say that a higher percentage of gays and lesbians partake of it than straight people. I have never seen an orgy by straight people in a public restroom. I have never seen a straight person pretending to fuck someone in the ass on the street. I have seen gay people do both.

Regardless of that, my point is that I feel I have a right to take my kids out in public without them seeing indecent behaviour. Gays and lesbians, by virtue of the fact that they want to be 'in your face' with their sexual preferences, will never get any support from me for their cause.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 16:19   #158
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I don't think that that's a "global" thing of gays and lesbians, to be fair &mdash; not all are like that, and you notice those that are more because they're prominent. c.f. Intelligent Design-supporting Christians. I do think that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable, but I don't see a reason to denounce all gay people because of it, it's just unfair.

Those who want to be "in your face" come in many varieties, also, and those which march in gay rights parades (which are not indecent) are not the exact same group of people that you see doing these crazy things in public (which clearly are indecent).

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 16:19   #159
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
I've seen straight people pretend to hump people in public.
Straight people are less likely to have orgies in public bathrooms because men's and women's bathrooms are separate
But yeah, there are laws in place governing indecency, already, I believe.


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2006, 18:34   #160
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
When Pat Robertson fills an auditorium, there are thousands of times more christians that think he's a nut.
Speaking as a guy who has a friend who is going to Regent University for grad school, about half the auditorium thinks he's nuts, too.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump