Homosexuality: What’s the big deal?

[Asguard]

note to all smart people

BAIT

 

[Asguard]

hey lady

you know what the gate way to gay sex, animal sex, whips and chains, bj, ect is??????

SEX

OMG

we have to ban all sex now

 

[spookz]

i had no idea moderator asguard was into bestiality
ewww!

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Xev

Your opinion is verbal shit. Nobody with an IQ above that of a cauliflower would respect it.

** But they'll listen to it (he-he)

None of us would want to sleep with you, Lady dear. But you will have to succumb to us in the political sphere.

** Succumb what does that mean?

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Asguard
hey lady

you know what the gate way to gay sex, animal sex, whips and chains, bj, ect is??????

SEX

OMG

we have to ban all sex now

So began Stinky Revelations

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by RichardJA
ok Jan, I'll bite, explain why it would be detriment to the persons and society involved. Is it wrong that a person is happy being who they are, the way they were created? Is it wrong for the person to be in a loving, caring supportive relationship. Or would you prefer they are in a heterosexual relationship where they are lying to the person they are involved with, and lying to themselves, they are miserable, and hate their life. You will no doubt tell me homosexuality is wrong. Would you like to tell that to the two bulls I have out that back that were mounting each other last night.

You're missing the point.
You're asking questions, why this and why that, you feel it, you know what you are going through, i am merely trying to communicate to you some possible answers. Don't waste your time trying to prove me right or wrong, now you have more answers to your questions, try and work things out for yourself.

The problem with homosexuality isn't religion or God. No, the problem is the religious fanatics that think it is their right to interfere with people's privates life's just because they believe that the hurt and hatred that they preach is doing god's work.

Do you think if men loved and cared for other men, the same way men and women cared for each other but never had sex with each other, it would matter so much?
I know what you are thinking, it's my life, i can live it how i please, etc etc...But we both know life doesn't work like that, there is always going to be interferance and discomfort.
Don't get me wrong, i am not in judgement of you, my stance in this conversation, so far is one of neutrality, but I think the problem with homosexuality is the "sex act".

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Xev]

Lady:

** But they'll listen to it (he-he)

Listen, but we'll also laugh at you. Fool.

** Succumb what does that mean?

It means you need to buy a dictionary, you stupid fundie bitch. God, you are such a moron that you would lose an IQ race with a tomato.

Hmm, I'm out of practice with the flames.

 

[Lady]

atleast a goat wouldnt keep bleating "god said so" at people who either dont belive in him\her or have a totaly DIFFERENT view of him\her

Asguard,


So which is it? Don't believe/ Different View

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Xev
Lady:

Listen, but we'll also laugh at you. Fool.

** SO ? whats your point?

It means you need to buy a dictionary

** Will you buy me one? So that I may understand your great wisdom

you stupid fundie bitch. God, you are such a moron that you would lose an IQ race with a tomato.

Hmm, I'm out of practice with the flames.

** wha.... fundie...Your flames stink ..( I will look that word up) you might have crossed the line....

:bugeye:

 

[Xev]

Lady:

You have the common sense of Raisin Bran and the intelligence to match. You should go back to alt.stupidfundietwits, for you don't belong in the company of anyone who can comprehend simple things like the fact that ice is cold.

You are merely a stupid troll with no life or future outside the 'net. However, take comfort in the fact that you have a great future on the internet, as a laughingstock for your intellectual superiours.

Now, don't take me as bragging when I say I'm your intellectual superiour. After all, the class of "Lady's superiours" includes:

Flatworms
Retarded jellyfish
Lobotomized kittens
Spirocytes.

Among others. So I don't take pride in something that the entire kingdom chordata shares.

 

[wet1]

Lady, in fact, I do not even read your "posts" in here. I agree with Xev. They are too stupid to be true.

I suggest you start to show something of intelligence. Stop your quotes and one sentence "replies" on that quotes and give us a good reason why we should read the ramblings you display here at sciforums, in many, many threads.

So, Lady, back on topic. If you do not have anything significant to say, then don't say anything.

If you do have a problem with members, you can start a thread in Free Thoughts.

I am sure there willl be people joining you there.

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Xev
Lady:

You have the common sense of Raisin Bran and the intelligence to match. You should go back to alt.stupidfundietwits, for you don't belong in the company of anyone who can comprehend simple things like the fact that ice is cold.

** Are you spitting great wisdom again?

You are merely a stupid troll with no life or future outside the 'net. However, take comfort in the fact that you have a great future on the internet, as a laughingstock for your intellectual superiours.

** Enough with the compliments

Now, don't take me as bragging when I say I'm your intellectual superiour. After all, the class of "Lady's superiours" includes:

Flatworms
Retarded jellyfish
Lobotomized kittens
Spirocytes

** You have no future in comedy

 

[Lady]

Originally posted by Banshee

Lady, in fact, I do not even read your "posts" in here. I agree with Xev. They are too stupid to be true.

** Obviously you do read my post- YOU KEEP CLOSING THEM

HAD NO RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PARANORMAL THREAD

I suggest you start to show something of intelligence. Stop your quotes and one sentence "replies" on that quotes and give us a good reason why we should read the ramblings you display here at sciforums, in many, many threads.

** And how would you know my intelligence level if you don't read my post?

So, Lady, back on topic. If you do not have anything significant to say, then don't say anything.

** That's the whole ideal......Lady don't say anything.

If you do have a problem with members, you can start a thread in Free Thoughts.

**WILL YOU CLOSE THAT ONE TO?

 

[wet1]

Thread closed... for now.

No offense Mystech, note the: For Now.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by Xev
Your opinion is verbal shit. Nobody with an IQ above that of a cauliflower would respect it.

That is a very impetuous thing to assert, comrade! Even the dull and ignorant have their stories, and, ergo, it is unwise and crass to ignore them.
No derisive innuendo concerning Lady's relative dullness or ignorance was intended. In fact, Lady seems to be amply well- endowed with competence and merit.


Returning to the exceedingly controversial original topic, as to err further into the realm of intermittent condemnation and mudslinging would be but an exercise in regression, I must say that homosexuality is, by no means, the worst of the sexual perversions pervasive in today's society.

Indeed, its claims on the ever-reviled title of "most-licentious-sexual-pursuit-conceivable" are quite tenuous.

I am aware of how presumtuous and insipid my aforementioned assertions may have seemed, yet I can quite confidently attest to their validity, seeing that I myself am a sadist, though not one of unscrupulous or diabolical practice.

Subsequently, the reader may understand that if I myself were to belittle or accost homosexuals in any way, I would be making a mockery of my own nature, one of perversion.

The "big deal" of this issue is the fact that regardless of one's denial of it, homosexuality is as deleterious as cannibalism. The effects of these disparate yet alike tendencies are identical:

They both nullify the effect of procreation, the act which "invigorates" and immortalizes the human race by allowing transient persons to leave behind a remnant of themselves in their progeny and future descendents.

Typical humans, though perhaps not realizing it consciously, are "subconsciously cognizant" and rather wary of homosexuality's inherently pernicious nature. This is why they abominate it so and decry it as 'evil." This is not to indicate that homosexuality is an antethesis to morality, but simply a harmful anomoly that many people detest without fathomig their true reasons for doing so.



It is my well-founded belief that homosexuality, along with all other forms of sexual perversion, finds its cause in psychologically influential minutiae in the lives of the "affected." I have ascertained that even seemigly inconsequential nuances in one's life may alter one's psche drastically.

Thus, it is by these "adjustments" that any given person may progress from normal heterosexuality into less-normal homosexuality or even into bizarre variations on the sexual-drive like sadism, masochism, or pedophilia.

 

[spacemanspiff]

The "big deal" of this issue is the fact that regardless of one's denial of it, homosexuality is as deleterious as cannibalism. The effects of these disparate yet alike tendencies are identical:

They both nullify the effect of procreation, the act which "invigorates" and immortalizes the human race by allowing transient persons to leave behind a remnant of themselves in their progeny and future descendents

so does a vow of celibacy. you comparing priest to cannibals?
anyone who doesn't procreate is as bad as a cannibal?

It is my well-founded belief that homosexuality, along with all other forms of sexual perversion, finds its cause in psychologically influential minutiae in the lives of the "affected

i'm curious as to what fits as perverse.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Subsequently, the reader may understand that if I myself were to belittle or accost homosexuals in any way, I would be making a mockery of my own nature, one of perversion.

I'd have to contest that homosexuals are perverted. Homosexuality isn't about kinky sex, we simply desire members of the same sex, and don't much care for the opposite sex, it's simply another sexual orientation. I don't date guys because I think that it's so much kinkier to have sex with a man, rather than with a woman like those boring old straights. I go out with guys because that's who I'm attracted to, and understand that many others don't share that feeling, but there's not a whole hell of a lot that I or they could do about it one way or another.

 

[Mystech]

Ok, and now the big question: When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, why is it that the people who are against it always seem like they are the ones with something stuck up their ass?

 

[Xev]

Redoubtable:

That is a very impetuous thing to assert, comrade! Even the dull and ignorant have their stories, and, ergo, it is unwise and crass to ignore them.

It's called baiting. *Winks*

The "big deal" of this issue is the fact that regardless of one's denial of it, homosexuality is as deleterious as cannibalism.

What's wrong with cannibalism? While murdering someone for their sweetbreads (and serving them to the Boston Philharmonic) is going a bit overboard, why is chowing down on the dead any worse than letting 'em rot?

I guess there's Kuru.

They both nullify the effect of procreation, the act which "invigorates" and immortalizes the human race by allowing transient persons to leave behind a remnant of themselves in their progeny and future descendents.

Piffle. Homosexuality does not nullify the effect of procreation. Homosexual sex is simply non-procreative. There have been famous homosexuals (read: Oscar Wilde) who have been devoted parents.

Certainly, preferring to fuck the same gender does not mean that one can only fuck the same gender.

Typical humans, though perhaps not realizing it consciously, are "subconsciously cognizant" and rather wary of homosexuality's inherently pernicious nature.

You have in no way proved homosexuality to be "inherently pernicious". You've backed an assertion with an assertion, and ended up with an assertion.

This is why they abominate it so and decry it as 'evil." This is not to indicate that homosexuality is an antethesis to morality, but simply a harmful anomoly that many people detest without fathomig their true reasons for doing so.

Does objective morality exist? I'd be delighted to see your proof of its existence.
Oh, it doesn't? So morality is only social/utilitarian?
Well then, homosexuality serves a very good purpose by limiting overpopulation. I'll admit that it's not horridly effective, but it has its place.

So much for any implication that homosexuality is "immoral".

As for being harmful - dude. Come on. I mean, come ON. How is a guy going down on another guy inherently anything?

It is my well-founded belief that homosexuality, along with all other forms of sexual perversion, finds its cause in psychologically influential minutiae in the lives of the "affected."

Well founded on what? Another assertion?

Thus, it is by these "adjustments" that any given person may progress from normal heterosexuality into less-normal homosexuality

Can you show homosexuality to be "abnormal"?
Don't try to tell me it's against nature. Homosexual sex is common in dolphins and chimpanzees, to name a few animals.

into bizarre variations on the sexual-drive like sadism, masochism, or pedophilia.

*Xev rolls her eyes*

Normally I'd register complaint to being grouped with the paedophiles, but I'm rather buzzed.
Some of us would seperate consensual, non-harmful things such as homosexuality or sadomasochism with nonconsensual, harmful things like paedophilia, but some of us have more braincells than we have toes.

Mystech:

Ok, and now the big question: When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, why is it that the people who are against it always seem like they are the ones with something stuck up their ass?

*Laughs*
That's a good question.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by Xev
Redoubtable:

It's called baiting. *Winks*

Well, whatever peels your banana!

What's wrong with cannibalism? While murdering someone for their sweetbreads (and serving them to the Boston Philharmonic) is going a bit overboard, why is chowing down on the dead any worse than letting 'em rot?

Simple Explanation:
Frequently, an individual organism becomes a carcass becuase its vitality had in some way been stricken by a pestilence, contagion, or virulent disease. If one were to consume the substance of such a corpse, one would thereby assimilate these undesirable creatures and become subject to the very ailment(s) which triggered the "food's" death.
Though not all corpses are the result of infectious affliction, no one being is able to differentiate between a hazardous body and a clean one.

A peer of mine has just suggested that any foreign or pathological bacteria could conceivably be expurgated by very fastidious and intense cooking.
However, our natural instincts do not give regard to such modern methods, and, thus, morality is inclined to ignore up-to-date culinery techniques.

Additionally, we (peer included) don't believe that all pathological agents could truly be destroyed by conventional or even powerful cooking, seeing that many viruses are notably resillient to the elements.

Since our instincts are the base from which our morals are derived, and our instincts are justified in cataloguing cannabilism as destructive, cannibalism is immoral.

Piffle. Homosexuality does not nullify the effect of procreation. Homosexual sex is simply non-procreative.

You have in no way proved homosexuality to be "inherently pernicious". You've backed an assertion with an assertion, and ended up with an assertion.

Homosexuality induces persons to "butt-fuck." That is most definitely pernicious in that it fosters an inordinate amount of disease. The gays are dying like flies because of this. That is inherently pernicious.

Also, practicing a form of sexual intercourse, or atleast bizarre copulation, one is meant to (The VERY ACT OF INTERCOURSE finds its purpose in this! That is why I use the often infuriating word "meant.") PRODUCE PROGENY! Without this result, the act of intercourse is a waste of time.

Perhaps pernicious is an unsuitable word. Forgive me. I now favor "flippant, irrational, and utterly useless."

Does objective morality exist?
So much for any implication that homosexuality is "immoral".

To be sure, an objective morality exists! The conscience is this objective morality. Given, it is rather mercurial and differs considerably from one person to the other, but it is still a form of morality available to all and applicable to any plight, circumstance, or fellow human.

Can you show homosexuality to be "abnormal"?
Don't try to tell me it's against nature. Homosexual sex is common in dolphins and chimpanzees, to name a few animals.

I will concede this point to you, Xev. Homosexuality is, indeed, a integral facet of exclusively mammalian behaviour, a part of nature.

Some of us would seperate consensual, non-harmful things such as homosexuality or sadomasochism with nonconsensual, harmful things like paedophilia . . .

Homosexuality may occur naturally, but as it does not benefit the species in which it exists, it is not a desirable trait, and, is in my opinion harmful.

Pedophilia is simply yet another sexual orientation. It's is also a perversion as it causes only misery and iniquity("iniquity" being something not ignoble or evil, but very harmful).
I don't care how much people detest it, but pedophilia is just an "orientation." The same thing applies to sadomasochism.