About gay pepole, to be precise.

[J@3]

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.

I think the point I was getting across is that you can automatically tell if someone has down syndrome because of the facial features that are somewhat deformed, whereas with homosexuality you can't really tell (unless it's someone like Prince or whatever).

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

In this day and age? No... I wouldn't want them to go through all of the drama that would come with being gay. If people were completely tolerant I wouldn't care one way or another, though I'd rather my daughter be a lesbian because I'd want to bash all of her boyfriends

[Fenix]

I think Prince is straight. Actually, I'm almost certain that he's married (to a female).

[J@3]

Yeah, but to look/listen to him you'd think he was gay.

[Colin]

I could of sworn Prince has admitted bi-sexuality...

I'm with Jae on the 'would you want your children to be gay' question. I wouldn't want my kids to be unfairly judged because of anything. In the end, if they're happy I'm happy. But they're chance of being happy could end up being a little lower.

On the first subject quickly. Go ahead and let gays get married. But lets limit marriage to humans that can actually make the decision. I definitely don't like the flamboyant, thong-adorned gays. And to whoever said something about racial marches in rsponse to someone not liking the parades. Personally I think of the flamboyant gays I don't like as the 'black power, curse the white devil' black people I'm not fond of. Anybody that takes something too far is just silly.

[Fenix]

Will you decide who can get married and who can't? IMO, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and I'm against changing the definition. Allowing men (or women) to marry each other is one of the basic steps to the moral chaos I mentioned before. If men can marry, than marriage becomes a institution of excess, something people will make fun of it. I should be able to marry my dog. Hey, who are you to say that we don't love each other? You can't suddenly change something that was developed through time and is a 'natural' institution, you can't just rewrite the definitions of family, marriage, etc.. I'm basically saying this: marriage was created through centuries with straight people in mind. That's the truth. There were no gay people integrated into the whole big picture of things. Is it unfair and illogical? Perhaps, but one has the right to squash a fly, but he can't do the same with a dog, because that's what the society says. But hell, dog or a fly - it's both a fucking animal. Gay and straight, they are all human and should therefore all be able to marry but the same rules don't apply and shouldn't apply, because in the grand scheme of things, it's not the same fucking thing.

[iKe7in]

That holiest of institution began as business agreements, not about love.

IMO, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and I'm against changing the definition. Allowing men (or women) to marry each other is one of the basic steps to the moral chaos I mentioned before.

Yeah. because clearly if we allow gay marriage we'll have giant orgies in the streets, little children won't be able to leave the house without getting gang raped, and it will be acceptable for people to hunt there enemies for sport. If you live in a country where gay marriage is legal, you would know that there is absolutely no noticeable difference.

If men can marry, than marriage becomes a institution of excess, something people will make fun of it.

Yup, people will just stand outside churches and just wait for the newly married couple to come out, and then they'll just laugh their asses off. It'll become the newest spectator sport.
No straight couple is going to feel that their marriage is less special just because someone they don't even know can do the same with another man.

I should be able to marry my dog. Hey, who are you to say that we don't love each other?

Your dog can't make an informed decision to get married.

You can't suddenly change something that was developed through time and is a 'natural' institution, you can't just rewrite the definitions of family, marriage, etc..

So lets aboloish divorce too then. You can't just ignore the progression of the human condition because you don't want to change the rules that didn't consider it in the first place.

Perhaps, but one has the right to squash a fly, but he can't do the same with a dog, because that's what the society says.

It's fun to compare things that have nothing to do with each other, isn't it? If you don't have a real argument, then just admit it, and end it there.

But hell, dog or a fly - it's both a fucking animal.

Insects aren't animals dumbass.

Gay and straight, they are all human and should therefore all be able to marry but the same rules don't apply and shouldn't apply, because in the grand scheme of things, it's not the same fucking thing.

It is the same thing. They have found someone they want to spend the rest of their life with, with whom they are deeply in love, and with whom they may or may not wish to start a family with. Marriage provides stability no matter who is involved.

[Donatello]

Insects aren't animals dumbass.

Yes they are. >.>

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.

Didn't say you were religious. I wasn't correcting your spelling, just noting that how I was spelling it was correctly so that someone didn't call ME on spelling it wrong. Interesting how you still spell it wrong, though, even after seeing the correct spelling. I've never really entered a debate (or a discussion at all, come to think of it) with you, are you always this.... shall we say, strong-willed?

I don't understand how any one person can say that something is 'unnatural'. Nobody can speak for the entirety of the dominant species on this planet. Everything is natural, everything comes from this Earth.

All love is is chemicals in your brain, and some people's brains are just different. How is that unnatural? Evolution happens and completely changes the makeup of a being. Would you call that unnatural?

[iKe7in]

Animals (dogs, humans) are warm blooded mammals. Insects are not.

[Donatello]

Animals (dogs, humans) are warm blooded mammals. Insects are not.

Animal does not = mammal or warm blooded. Fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, even coral and anenomes are animals. Wayyy off-topic.

[Fenix]

Excess always begins with allowing things that were forbidden. More and more things will be allowed, which leads us to a society without rules = anarchy. Perhaps situation is not as black as I would like to present it to be, but it did happen (Greece, Rome) and it will happen again. Historically looking, America is probably the place where it will all begin as they're a large country with poor cultural fundamentals and with growing excess and exploatation of their (former) glory. Ironically, the Bush administration (the conservatists) is doing worse job than Clinton (a liberal). But still, republican administration offers a nice antithesis to the European semi-liberalism.

And every living being not doing photosinthesis is a goddamn animal.

[iKe7in]

Allowing another step in the natural progression of the human condition is not the same as abolishing the rules of society. Allowing gay marriage is not going to make pedophelia okay. It's not going to make bestaility okay. It's not going to make incest acceptable. It's not going to make rape, murder, robbery or genocide acceptable. If you really believe gay marriage is a step towards a scoiety where all those thing are acceptable, you're fuckin lost dude.

[Fenix]

Look at it this way: a couple of centuries ago you would be killed for sleeping with a guy. Hell, sodomy is still forbidden in some American states and in a lot of countries world-wide. Do you think that people from the 18th century would find legalization of gay marriages a drastic change? Don't you think that's a sign that our moral standards have change a bit? And changes are happening faster and faster. Do you think people from the 18th century were able to imagine that we'll take things this far? Why isn't this only a intermediate step that leads to legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia. With delevopment of computers and computer graphics, how can you know that digital experience of having sex with a 3d model of your 10 year old daughter won't become legal forty or fifty years from now? Sure, you can't imagine it now, but like said before - 18th century folks weren't expecting that gay marriages were going to become legal. That's why I support the existance of conservative institutions like church and extremist movements. That's the only way to achieve the middle grounds.

And fags aren't the 'another step in progression of human kind'. They're the abnormality that occured, not something we should include in our future plans or make a solid part of our society.

[Donatello]

And fags aren't the 'another step in progression of human kind'. They're the abnormality that occured, not something we should include in our future plans or make a solid part of our society.

-removed. Meh, I did overreact. I still don't like that statement. Apologies.

[Fenix]

You're overreacting. I'm all for gay rights, but IMO, some are overdoing it (marriage) - that is what I mean with making them 'a solid part of our society'. And with future plans? A cure that prevents disorders like this from occuring. In our case, there are two sides - one that finds homosexuality 'normal' and feels like they need to support them and there's my side - tolerance, but I don't feel like I need to award them or make them my equal. They have the same rights than I do, because they're every as human as I am, but that is where the things end. HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUCIONALIZED. That is not an option. Would I be a friend with a gay person? why not? Would I love my child if he or she was homosexual. Of course, but I prefer my friends and children to be straight.

[iKe7in]

Look at it this way: a couple of centuries ago you would be killed for sleeping with a guy.

Yeah, wasn't everything great back then? Lets bring back slavery too.

Hell, sodomy is still forbidden in some American states and in a lot of countries world-wide.

Yeah, I know, I mentioned that earlier that its illegal for two consenting males to have sex, yet its legal in some of those states to have sex with animals.

Do you think that people from the 18th century would find legalization of gay marriages a drastic change?

Yeah, but they would fins a lot of things drastic. Like allowing women or black people to vote. Are those also signs of moral decay?

Don't you think that's a sign that our moral standards have change a bit?

Yes, the standards have become much more tolerant of people different than ourselves, as it should be.

And changes are happening faster and faster. Do you think people from the 18th century were able to imagine that we'll take things this far?

Enough with the 18th century man. It's not like they lived in paradise. And it's not taking things far, its the bare minimum.

Why isn't this only a intermediate step that leads to legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia.

Because this is allowing two consenting people to make a decision. There is no victim.

With delevopment of computers and computer graphics, how can you know that digital experience of having sex with a 3d model of your 10 year old daughter won't become legal forty or fifty years from now?

I don't know that. I can't see it happening, but I can't say I'm sure a debate about something like that wouldn't be brought up. But I can't see a day when something that has such a non-existent group of supporters be discussed rationally.

Sure, you can't imagine it now, but like said before - 18th century folks weren't expecting that gay marriages were going to become legal.

We're not living in the 18th century! We live in the 21st century where we are a thousand times smarter and understand how life works.

That's why I support the existance of conservative institutions like church and extremist movements. That's the only way to achieve the middle grounds.

And fags aren't the 'another step in progression of human kind'.

I really couldn't care less if that's wht you believe, because I know I'm not going to convince you. But realize that being intelligent enought o allow the extension of marriage is a step forward in our own human condition.

They're the abnormality that occured, not something we should include in our future plans or make a solid part of our society.

Humans are an abnormality. Everything today is an abnormality based on where we were as a civilization from the beginning of our existence. Nad the only reason we haven't evolved further into a more peaceful and tolerant society is because we still worship that fucking book.

[Fenix]

So enlighten us with what you think what other little steps forward in our own human condition will occur? Let's be completely objective - sooner and later scientists will find out that pedophilia and necrophilia are a mental condition a la autism. Can you cure it? Why? It's perfectly normal and natural. Society will accept it, society accepts everything if a counterforce doesn't show up and prevent it. So basically, we will find a problem - how to make everyone happy? The answer lies in technology and the bigger problem lies in the conceptual error we would be making and we are making. We are and we will be accepting deviations as something that should be integrated into the fundamentals of our society. That is what I mean with 'institucionalizing homosexuality' and other deviations.

Yeah, but they would fins a lot of things drastic. Like allowing women or black people to vote. Are those also signs of moral decay?

Women and black people are part of the 'normal' human rase, part of the evolution. Homosexuality is a deviation of the evolution and not an integral part of it. It's a big difference.

We're not living in the 18th century! We live in the 21st century where we are a thousand times smarter and understand how life works.

You completely missed my point. The difference between our mentality and mentality of 18th century folks could very well as big as the one that will be between us and our successors. I'm talking about the evolution of moral standards here and I'm pretty sure we're pushing it in that department. We're already pushing the things a bit too far. Are we at the same point of the moral 'growth' as Romans and Greeks were when their civilization was destroyed and began rebuilding? Not yet, probably. Our ceiling is also greater because of the globalization and everything, but somewhere the 'growth' will stop and rebuilding will began if we don't control the process.

My apologies to you, Donatello. My knowledge of English is still somewhat limited and sometimes the words I write don't come out right. I didn't mean it as conservative or as ignorant as it seems to be.

[cyanide]

Will you decide who can get married and who can't? IMO, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman and I'm against changing the definition.

It was only about, what, 70 years ago that the Church finally made the definition of marriage as a sacred institution between man and woman? That was way too recent. If you look back at earlier centuries, marriages were arranged between families as a business contract, not love. Two consenting individuals didn't make the decision, their parents did. And this came at a conservative period where there was stability and structure, but you're forgetting it was a time of extreme oppression for all minorities, including women. This still happens today in parts of the world. In fact, I'm not even sure if the Church includes love as a definition today, iirc from my marriage & sexuality course. Today, there's two kinds of marriages, a civil contract with the government to obtain legal rights and legitimacy that two individuals are bound together as spouses, and a sacred union by the Church. Divorce is allowed in civil government, but with the Catholic Church, divorce is forbidden unless it's through annulment. What does that mean? What does marriage mean? It's not about love anymore. If it was, there would be very little divorces, and gay marriage would be allowed. Obviously, there's still a social stigma against homosexuals, and the definition of marriage is still yet to be clearly defined, even by the Church.

Allowing men (or women) to marry each other is one of the basic steps to the moral chaos I mentioned before. If men can marry, than marriage becomes a institution of excess, something people will make fun of it. I should be able to marry my dog.

The difference is that we are human beings, men and women, men and men, women and women, all human beings; all capable of reason, conscience, communication, and love. Dogs are different species, though we can't say that they're unable to reason, lack conscience, unable to communicate, or to love, but if we think about how a dog would have an effect on the growth of a human individual, it's a path backwards because the human being can't grow when he/she has to restrict him/herself to the dog's maximum potential, which is not much. If two human beings can marry, to grow together in mind, spirit, and body, there's no doubt that one is helping the other to flourish and to be happy within their existence.

I'm basically saying this: marriage was created through centuries with straight people in mind. That's the truth. There were no gay people integrated into the whole big picture of things. Is it unfair and illogical? Perhaps, but one has the right to squash a fly, but he can't do the same with a dog, because that's what the society says. But hell, dog or a fly - it's both a fucking animal. Gay and straight, they are all human and should therefore all be able to marry but the same rules don't apply and shouldn't apply, because in the grand scheme of things, it's not the same fucking thing.

It's an unfair and illogical comparison when you're comparing the exclusion of a minority group to comparing killing specific types of animals. We all know we're barbarians when it comes to cows and pigs and flies, but jeez, a dog is a man's best friend! Now, how this has to do with heterosexuals and homosexuals? I don't know.

With recent gay movements and literature, they're making their voices heard against the oppression of conservative values. I can compare this to the French Revolution and the Rights Movement, because gays are fighting for what they deserve: equal opportunity. That's the truth.

Women and black people are part of the 'normal' human rase, part of the evolution. Homosexuality is a deviation of the evolution and not an integral part of it. It's a big difference.

Funny, the same was being said for blacks and womens as early as a hundred years ago. Well, maybe not women, but they sure were treated unfairly. Can you explain why homosexuality is a deviation of the evolution? If you can say homosexuality is a deviation of evolution, then you're essentially saying the same thing for people with physical disabilities. You end up sounding like a supremacist if you hold these claims.

[shadowgrin]

Homosexuality is a deviation of the evolution

There is solid evidence which shows that not only humans have homosexual tendencies. Animals have "homos" too.
Some of these animals are chimps, monkeys, dolphins, and penguins.

Nothing to offer much to the debate, just a trivia.

[Donatello]

Homosexuality is a deviation of the evolution

There is solid evidence which shows that not only humans have homosexual tendencies. Animals have "homos" too.
Some of these animals are chimps, monkeys, dolphins, and penguins.

Nothing to offer much to the debate, just a trivia.

One of my rabbits (he just died recently) was a complete homosexual.

[iKe7in]

Its hard to tell which animals are homosexual because most dogs just hump anything that moves.

[iG®]

Actually, dogs smell eachother asses before humping. That's how they finding out weather other dog is an opposite sex.

[iKe7in]

Ummm...most dogs I've seen hump anything, like peoples legs or an arm of a chair. And I have two male dogs, unrelated, but any chance they get if one of them isnt looking the other one tries to hump him. Yet they also go after every female dog they meet. I thought neutering them was supposed to calm them down. Now that they're older they don't do it as often, but every once in a while you have to yell at one to stop.

[Donatello]

LMAO. Who would've thought this would evolve into a discussion of what dogs do or do not hump.

[shadowgrin]

Its hard to tell which animals are homosexual because most dogs just hump anything that moves.

Once saw a National Geographic feature about chimps. They actually showed a male chimp ramming the other male chimp in the ass. *pukes*

[Cable]

Humping in animals is a sign of dominance, so if male dog 1 humps male dog 2, it means dog 1 thinks he's better than dog 2. I think it's probably the same with other animals too.