About gay pepole, to be precise.

1) And YOUR argument was that physical attraction is a big part of love, that's all I was responding to.

Yeah, but you changed your argument.
But there is an emotional connection you feel with someone BECAUSE they are the gender you are attracted to. If you're only attracted to women, then you'renot going to have a similar connection one day with a man.

2) You can love how someone looks, just like you can love how a good pizza looks. Physical appearance is NOT a part of loving who someone is.

Yes emotional connection is the biggest part of loving someone, but you are not going to have as strong of connection with someone you are not attracted to.

Would you rather spend your life with someone who looks like girls who are on the cover of current magazines, or someone you honestly connect with on a deep personal level?

Nobody ever said you couldn't fall in love with someone who was beaten with an ugly stick, but if you are a straight man, you are still attracted to them because they are a women. Unless you are ridiculously shallow, you wouldn't really love someone like you dscribed, very attractive, but with no emotional connection.

I was directed back towards the thread, and I'm seriously pleased with the results. Though, as Jae said- I truly think it's because the retards have steered clear. Hopefully my strong statements conerning my fears about this thread helped dissuade them from posting.

Or maybe we actually have mature posters here and you're just being delusional

Would you rather spend your life with someone who looks like girls who are on the cover of current magazines, or someone you honestly connect with on a deep personal level?

Nobody ever said you couldn't fall in love with someone who was beaten with an ugly stick, but if you are a straight man, you are still attracted to them because they are a women. Unless you are ridiculously shallow, you wouldn't really love someone like you dscribed, very attractive, but with no emotional connection.

I think the big misunderstanding is the difference between 'gender' and 'sex.' Gender refers to heterosexual, homosexual, transexual, etc. and sex refers to the genitals. There could be a preference to the penis or the vagina; or to take it further, one could prefer rugged muscular shapes over soft and curvy shapes.

Now both of you are arguing over attraction. Physical attraction is based on a physical relationship, a preference for the sex is what I think iKe7in is getting at. Emotional attraction is what I think Donatello is getting at, where love for a human being is valued regardless of physical appearance.

What is trying to be said is this: If a male has a sexual preference for females, then the physical appearance of the female should not matter to the male if there is emotional attachment.

I think the big misunderstanding is the difference between 'gender' and 'sex.' Gender refers to heterosexual, homosexual, transexual, asexual, etc. and sex refers to the genitals.

Not exactly, 'gender' and 'sex' both refer to the same thing, male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite, etc..

'Sexuality' or 'orientation' refers to heterorexual, homosexual or bisexual. Transsexual doesn't fit with those, but I think you were thinking of bisexual.

What is trying to be said is this: If a male has a sexual preference for females, then the physical appearance of the female should not matter to the male if there is emotional attachment.

But the point he made first that I had the problem with is when he said that it wouldn't matter make a difference, that you would be just as attracted to a male or female as long as you had an emotional connection.

But the point he made first that I had the problem with is when he said that it wouldn't matter make a difference, that you would be just as attracted to a male or female as long as you had an emotional connection.

Emotions are all that matter in love, if you think anything else, you're not seeing the whole picture or are shallow.

Men are usually drawn to women (and vice versa) naturally because, obviously, that's how we reproduce. It's a primal thing.

Let me put my main point that you're disagreeing with another way.

Romantic love can exist between any two people, regardless of gender. Most (straight) people are looking for more than just that love though. They want that love (not to mention social norms which we're all pushed so hard to fit into), and someone to reproduce with which obviously can't happen naturally. For that reason, it becomes totally impossible for them to see a member of the same sex as a potential life partner. And there's nothing wrong with that. What are a husband and wife, really? They're good friends who spend most of their time together, but they just happen to (usually) reproduce.

And of course, it's completely possible that an open-minded man could go his entire life without meeting that one other man who is out there that could make him feel that way. Or the same for a woman. It's a combination of how aware of yourself you are, and luck.

But the mental blocks are all there because of hundreds of years of social norms that are forced upon us.

Not exactly, 'gender' and 'sex' both refer to the same thing, male, female, transsexual, hermaphrodite, etc..

Not anymore. 'Sex' refers to biological categories, and 'gender' refers to social or cultural categories, based on contemporary definitions.

'Sexuality' or 'orientation' refers to heterorexual, homosexual or bisexual. Transsexual doesn't fit with those, but I think you were thinking of bisexual.

You can add bisexual, but why doesn't transsexual fit in? It's still a sexuality where one claims to be the opposite sex, but in biological terms, a transexual is still either a 'male' or a 'female.' For example, if a woman becomes a male, she is a transexual because she changed her gender. Biologically, she's still a woman with parts tweaked and attached.

But the point he made first that I had the problem with is when he said that it wouldn't matter make a difference, that you would be just as attracted to a male or female as long as you had an emotional connection.

The debate is still going on whether sexual orientation is genetic or social. If one is born gay, then your argument wouldn't work since a sexual preference is established; but if one is born bisexual before making a preference, then your argument could work that regardless of sex, an emotional connection with a human being could be established.

Edit: After reading Donatello's post, I'm just confused on what the heck you guys are trying to get at

Edit: After reading Donatello's post, I'm just confused on what the heck you guys are trying to get at

I'm making points that are probably a bit too deep to get out, in text at least. My point, unadultered: People are people, some have different gentials, different hormones, etc... The only reason a "man/woman" relationship is what's considered 'normal' is for reproduction purposes.

I'm making points that are probably a bit too deep to get out, in text at least.

Not really, just wasn't sure where you were getting at.

My point, unadultered: People are people, some have different gentials, different hormones, etc... The only reason a "man/woman" relationship is what's considered 'normal' is for reproduction purposes.

I agree with that. A lot of factors, including religion's belief that man/woman relationships are considered just and holy are because of procreation, contribute to society's disdain on homosexuals... but now that there are more open minded people than there were 100 years ago, the trend seems to be changing.

what's the big deal to some of you regarding gay awareness/rights parades?

it's more or less the same as ethnicity marches/indepence days or even the that big minority march that happened about a month ago in cities all over the U.S

And here we go with religion...

It was a simple comparison of how 60, 70 years ago religon was the norm and Homosexuality was frowned upon. Now you see almost a reversal of that, which is evident by your rolling eyes in your post (in both examples as well )

They're not hurting anyone, which is something you can't say for pedophilia. In the broader sense of the term (which does not have negative connotations) you could say pedophiles are discriminated against but it's not without just cause; such individuals pose a threat to children. You could also say beastiality is cruel to animals, which again is a case of the person's lifestyle being harmful to others.

I'll grant you that point, but just to play devils advocate, alot of pedophiles will say that "they are just loving" a child, or "showing love" and "affection". I'm not saying that its right, and in their sick mind they probably believe it. However the concept of it being harmful as a reason as to why its different is to concerntrate on the end result rather than the cause. If (pedophillia) wasnt so harmful to the child, would it still be considered wrong? In my opinion, personally, i wouldnt treat it any different. It's still sick to view a small child as a sexual object, with or without repurcussions.

As for animals, how ironic is it that im eating a steak as i type this lol. But seriously, when have we as a society cared about animals? I'm probably the worse hypocrit of this, as i have 3 dogs but nothing beats a barbequed steak or hamburger.

Anyway: It's wrong to compare homosexuals to pedophiles or goat-fuckers. Are you serious? It's not the way of nature, I'll give you that. But it's consensual. Something that can't quite be said about the other two, right?

How can you make that assumption?

Eh it's already been covered by Andrew that a homosexual relationship is a relationship between consenting adults, and the only thing wrong with it is from a Christian standpoint (that I don't have). Pedophilia (no matter if the child thinks they want it or not, they're in no position to make that decision) and Bestiality (yes, it's spelled without 'a' on 'beast', don't ask me why) are not proper consenting relationships. This comparison is null.

For starters, It's my viewpoint and im not religous. Second of all I couldn't care less about trivial spelling on a message board. And thirdly, the comparison wasnt about whether they were consenting, but rather about the fact that homosexuality, pedophillia and beastiality are all unnatural.

And thirdly, the comparison wasnt about whether they were consenting, but rather about the fact that homosexuality, pedophillia and beastiality are all unnatural.

So is brushing your teeth, wearing deodorant, wearing eye glasses, and shoes.

Plus, who says what is and isn't natural? I think a person's [b]natural]/b] attraction to another human being is about has natural as it gets.

If it was natural, homosexuals would be able to reproduce.

If it was natural, homosexuals would be able to reproduce.

Who says reproduction is the requirement for something to be natural?

A relationship is about a whole lot more then just reproduction. Reproduction is just a part of a relationship. Should couples who choose not to have children be illegal too?

Plus, why do we need more children? We definitley have absolutley no problem with underpopulation.

"Why do we need more children"
That has to be the dumbest line I've heard for a while here.

From a gendered sense, reproduction is key when talking about whats natural. Next you'll be saying transexuals are just as "natural" as blonde haired kids.

And thirdly, the comparison wasnt about whether they were consenting, but rather about the fact that homosexuality, pedophillia and beastiality are all unnatural.

So is brushing your teeth, wearing deodorant, wearing eye glasses, and shoes.

Plus, who says what is and isn't natural? I think a person's [b]natural]/b] attraction to another human being is about has natural as it gets.

I agree with that somewhat. I mean in modern culture those things are natural cause the last thing you want is yellow needle thick teeth and having the stench of a rat when your going out or not being able to read a book. Sure it might not have been natural ages ago but I think it's natural now, people can't live healthy lives these days without doing things that were regarded unnatural ages ago.

Your not going to get cancer and say ok fuck it I'll just die cause it's the natural thing to do like people in the past would cause their was no cure, your going to try and get treatment and survive. The application of natural changes as the years pass by and I don't think the true meaning of natural should be used when comparing gay people and personal health and hygiene. If your going to use brushing your teeth in an arguement as something that's not natural then being gay shouldn't be considering natural either cause the natural thing would be for a man and woman to be together and not a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be a couple.

The true natural thing is dick into pussy and not dick into hairy ass or pussy rubbing pussy. But a modernized natural could mean anything cause theirs more to the word natural these days than way back.

"Why do we need more children"
That has to be the dumbest line I've heard for a while here.

From a gendered sense, reproduction is key when talking about whats natural. Next you'll be saying transexuals are just as "natural" as blonde haired kids.

Haha, classic Matthew defense.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we had an underpopulation problem. I was merely saying that even if you want to make the case that its unnatural because it doesn't reproduce, that still doesn't matter because reproduction is not a problem we as a human race have right now.

Stevesanity, I agree with your point, but I think to sum it up what you are saying is that our idea of natural-ness ( ) has changed over the course of time. If we can continue to accept things previously considered "unnatural" why can't we give homosexuals their rights? Its inhumane to do otherwise.

What exactly would you know about "classic matthew"?

You said why do we need more children. Its a dumb comeback to say that theres plenty of people in the world, so homoesexuality is natural.

How exactly do they not have their rights. becuase they arent allowed to marry? As I said before, people can't marry people under the age of 16 or animals. Is that inhumane as well?

No, it's not reasonable that two consenting people have made an informed decision to get married. Kids can't make that kind of decision, and I doubt you'll get an "I do" a=out of an animal.

But with that way of thinking, its assuming guilt rather than innocence.

My question: why are genetic disorders like Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, hemophilia, dwarfism (etc.) treated like diseases who need to be cured and should be prevented, while homosexuality is treated like something normal which doesn't need a cure? Personaly, I don't have anything against homosexuals, but I also don't have anything against people with Down syndrome, which doesn't mean that they're 'normal' or that they're needed for the existance for the human race. I wouldn't kill them, but if there was a way to prevent them from ever being born (that is if there was a way to prevent these kind of genetic disorders from occuring), I would make it legal and I'm sure 99,9% of the population would use it.

and it seems male hairdressers are nearly always gay-mine is anyway

The difference is, the disorders you mention all have strong physical impacts and causes negative limitations to the mind and body. Things everyone can see and immediately say "that guy has down syndrome" which leads on to people being excluded from society because of it.

With gay people, they're exactly the same as the rest of us they just have a different sexual preference. There's some mental/biological differences obviously, but en masse you can't really tell if a person is gay just by seeing them walking down the street. People who are into bestiality and whatever are generally just fucked in the head, I would say 90% of people caught screwing an animal have some sort of mental problems. Homosexuals can fully function in society with no prejudice or vilification of any sort, depending on how hidden they keep their sexuality.

The guys who start speaking with a lisp, wearing feminine clothes and walking strangely are just asking for trouble. I mean straight guys don't do it, and even most lesbians don't really draw much attention to themselves in that way. That's just an image thing imo, like emo kids and gothics. Something they choose to do and as far as I'm concerned they should face the consequences (just like goths and emo's) because regardless of how "wrong" it might be, society hasn't accepted that on a large scale.

I do have to point out though, being gay doesn't mean they all go around screwing guys up the ass I've met guys who say they are gay because they are attracted to males and not women, but haven't had sex and probably won't because the whole actions involved don't appeal to them. Which is understandable. But think about it, if a straight guy is attracted to women, but hasn't had sex... would you not call him straight?

We'd have some virgins here *cough*i'dlistsomebutit'dbetooharsh*cough*, but they'd still be considered straight. In heterosexual society, having sex isn't an indication of sexual preference but for some reason we all hold homosexuals to a different standard. If you're gay you HAVE to have had sex with a guy, if you haven't you're either bi, straight or confused. It's odd.

The difference is, the disorders you mention all have strong physical impacts and causes negative limitations to the mind and body. Things everyone can see and immediately say "that guy has down syndrome" which leads on to people being excluded from society because of it.

You can't easily recognize schizophreniac either and that doesn't mean they're 'natural' and hey, we need more of them, they function perfectly allright (when on drugs). I agree, homosexuality is natural and so is Down syndrome and schizophrenia. But what do they have in common? They're all deformations in one way or another. Once again - it is natural, men and animals have it. But is it 'normal'? No, only a small percentage of the whole humanity has it, so you can't say it's normal nor that it's a part of the evolution, because they cannot have babies (with each other). No one says you need to look and generaly act like abnormal to be abnormal.

Being gay isn't a philosophical question, you are or you aren't. If you're a guy, attracted only by other guys, your fucking gay. There's no discussion whether you already put your peepee in someone's poopoo maker or vice versa.

[J@3]

You can't easily recognize schizophreniac either and that doesn't mean they're 'natural' and hey, we need more of them

You didn't mention schizophrenia, which is obviously compeltely different to down syndrome and whatever else you listed. So this makes no sense. You could replace schizophrenia with AIDS, cancer or any other illness with no physical signs and it'd be the same.

they function perfectly allright (when on drugs).

Have you ever met a schizophreniac? Trust me, you can tell.

They're all deformations in one way or another.

Deformaties aren't all the same. There's a difference between some Asian kid with 3 arms and someone who talks to God and kills people for fun.

Once again - it is natural, men and animals have it. But is it 'normal'? No, only a small percentage of the whole humanity has it, so you can't say it's normal nor that it's a part of the evolution

I'm assuming you're talking about homosexuality, so I'll run with that. The only thing preventing homosexuality from being seen as "normal" is society. For generations people have been raised to believe men are attracted to women, and that is all. Imagine if back in the 1600's homosexuality was at the stage it is now in humanity. It would be a COMPLETELY different story now, the level of acceptance would be at 100% and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But is it 'normal'? No, only a small percentage of the whole humanity has it, so you can't say it's normal

Only a small percentage of humanity is black, does that make them abnormal? I see where you're going with that and it does make sense, but there's too many shades of grey for that reasoning to be applied to this subject.

nor that it's a part of the evolution, because they cannot have babies (with each other).

Who are we to determine the path of evolution? The idea that reproduction is our purpose on Earth is purely man-made.

No one says you need to look and generaly act like abnormal to be abnormal.

Would you see the kid with 3 arms as abnormal? Yes, and why would you see him as abnormal? Because he has 3 arms... and why is that abnormal? Because the large majority of the global population only has 2. This isn't the 17th century, it's not like the World has a gay population of maybe 50 and that's it. There are hundreds of millions of homosexuals in the World today, the only thing that makes them abnormal is the societal view that men are supposed to be attracted to women. That's like what I mentioned before with black people... they might be a minority in most places, but no one (well except the Klan) sees them as abnormal because there are enough of them to be considered normal. Much like gay people.

I do realise the importance of reproduction as a survival instinct, but who exactly decided the purpose of life was to reproduce? Was it you? Was it God? Reproduction is necessary for humans to continue their existance here, but that's a decision that was made by humans. It's not a command, it's certainly not a law (hell, in some Asian countries they are trying to stop people from reproducing so much) if two people of the same sex make a conscious decision not to reproduce I don't really understand why it's any of our business. Millions of straight, physically capable people make the same decision. What's the difference? It's not like the World is turning gay

There's no discussion whether you already put your peepee in someone's poopoo maker or vice versa.

Well yeah I agree, but not everyone feels the same.

Just to clear things up a bit... I'm not all pro-gay rights or anything, I just think most of us have a fairly narrow view of the subject. I was probably more of a homophobe than Matthew before I had to spend some time with them

Last edited by J@3 on Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not scared of gays, I just dont like them.

I agree with you (Jae) on most points, but...

didn't mention schizophrenia, which is obviously compeltely different to down syndrome and whatever else you listed. So this makes no sense. You could replace schizophrenia with AIDS, cancer or any other illness with no physical signs and it'd be the same.

Schizophrenia is - like Down syndrom and unlike AIDS - a genetic disorder. Does schizophrenia show in a different manner than Down syndrom? Sure, but it's basically the same thing. They both affect you psychically (Down syndrom - your brains and body and schizophrenia - your brains) and therefore also mentally. The same thing could be said for homosexuality.

True, black people aren't the majority of the humanity, but they are still normal in their own context. It's like saying lions are abnormality because there is so little of them.

BTW, Greek and Roman civilization were both very tolerant towards homo- and bi-sexuality. In fact, bisexuality was actually very fashionable and acceptable among Greek warriors (Troy (the movie) says that Achilles and Patrocleus were cousins, while in fact they were most probably lovers). The failure of both civilizations is also one of the reasons I'm for recognizing homosexuality as something that needs to be prevented. Don't get me wrong, my view are generally liberal, I'm certain that homosexuals deserve all the rights 'normal' people do, but phenoms like this have always lead to doom. That's why I'm a big supporter of Catholic church (and - to some extent - existance of Bush's administration) and what it represents as a institution. It provides us with stability, with conservative views to oppose the liberalism of today's society. Without that, we would have moral chaos. It's not like I like their view, but I find their existance necessary.

Another question: would any of you risk a chance of having homosexual children if that could be prevented?