Homophobes

Quote from: Joe_Grim on June 24, 2007, 03:29:17 PM

Quote from: DanielPZC on June 24, 2007, 12:52:18 PM

Quote from: The Creature on June 22, 2007, 08:18:16 AM

Religion is NOT a good excuse to hate gay people.  Who agrees?

Religion is a great excuse to hate faggots. Just read Leviticus 20:13.

Apparently I'm supposed to stone you to death for disobeying your parents. Intriguing.

No, I obey my parents.

I am just pointing out a fact. God made AIDS for a reason, to kill off homosexuals. It is rather obvious homosexuality should be illegal. We have the death sentence for a reason.

hahaha, i died a little from reading this. best post ever,

i L'ed so hard my A fell O

Quote from: DanielPZC on June 24, 2007, 03:33:20 PM

I am just pointing out a fact. God made AIDS for a reason, to kill off homosexuals. It is rather obvious homosexuality should be illegal. We have the death sentence for a reason.

So since lesbians have a much lower chance of getting AIDS, even if they have sex with a woman who has AIDS, does that mean that God loves Lesbians?

Quote

And how is evolution connected with homosexuality?

It was claimed that having homosexual sex is not natural because it does not create babies.  That statement is clearly false because it is based on the premise that evolution is moving towards a direction or purpose.  Actually evolution is simply an adaption to the environment and the standard distribution of genes.  The fact that we see similar rates of homosexuality displayed in most vertebrates demonstrates that it is clearly natural, just like we see a small number of humans who are over 2 meters tall.  Something that is uncommon isn't unnatural. 

First of all, where do you come up with these statistics?

Secondly, don't tell me what evolution means if you do not understand it yourself. Simply put, evolution rests on two distinct, but equally important processes:

1) Randomization of the gene pool: This is achieved by the crossing-over during meiotic reproduction when the DNA of the father and the mother mix up. This clearly cannot be done in a homosexual relationship, so gays are out of the evolution story from the start;

2) Natural selection: There is a positive correlation between superior genetic makeup and success in the living environment. Since the superior creatures have the highest probability of survival, natural selection enables a mechanism of passing on the good genes. But, a necessary piece of the puzzle is that these superior beings reproduce themselves and pass on their genes. This, also, is impossible as far as gay beings are concerned.

So, evolution marks out gay beings from the start. If it appears that evolution has a purpose, it is because of the workings of the two above discussed principles. Their end effect is a kind of optimization, even though no intelligent entity is responsible for the development. Also, evolution is evident on such long time intervals that the whole history of the human civilization is just a brief period. After all, today’s humans differ slightly, if at all from ancient Romans, but gay sex was present in their societies, too.

And, we reach our conclusion. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, ultimately connected with the humans’ psyche and not their survival instincts. When civilizations formed, the evolution’s mechanism of natural selection was severely weakened, because there were living conditions even for the weak and it was considered uncivilized to eliminate the weak beings.

I wonder if people who say they find homosexuality 'unnatural' and 'wrong' have ever actually spoken to a gay person.

One of my best friends is gay and it isn't a choice he chose to make, he has suffered jibes and insults for years about it and is frustrated by 'how difficult' it is to find partners etc. Why would anyone choose to have a difficult, bullied lifestyle for no reason?

As for AIDs, the reason is very simple, many couples simply do not use contraception because it is seen as widely to prevent pregnancy which, obviously doesn't affect gay couples. This was especially true in the 70s, 80s.

Stop talking about these people as if they're some sub-human species to be prodded with probes and experimented on to see what's 'wrong' with them.

Homophobes, rascists, sexists make me sick.

Stop talking about these people as if they're some sub-human species to be prodded with probes and experimented on to see what's 'wrong' with them.

Homophobes, rascists, sexists make me sick.

And this will surely change my opinion. Please don't put different issues in the same bucket. Racism has nothing to do with homophobia. In fact, many racists are homosexuals themselves. And how much more sexist can you get when your sex is all you love? I don't give a f**k about your friends difficulty in finding partners, so, please, don’t give these kinds of examples. Every gay I know is a selfish, manipulative and ass-kissing bastard. I think that the derogatory term ‘fagot’ was derived from these points of their character.

EDIT:

This thread doesn't belong in religion&philosophy. Its place is in Angry Ranting, Complete Nonsense and/or Everything Else.

Yeah, nice generalising sweep of a massive group of people, dickhead.

I'm completely aware that racism etc are totally different things but it's unfounded prejudices in general I have a problem with

And how much more sexist can you get when your sex is all you love?

What a f*cking stupid comment, of course they can love the opposite sex as close friends, family members etc.

Yeah, nice generalising sweep of a massive group of people, dickhead.

I'm completely aware that racism etc are totally different things but it's unfounded prejudices in general I have a problem with

Quote

And how much more sexist can you get when your sex is all you love?

What a f*cking stupid comment, of course they can love the opposite sex as close friends, family members etc.

I gave the generalisation as a counter example of 'your friend's misfortunes in life' example. I don't give a f**k about some queens ripping their buttholes. They can do whatever they want. But, I don't want them telling me that I need to change the laws in the country so that the definition of marriage and parents fits their perverted lifestyle. And let's face it. When something is supported by such a small minority and finds disproval in the eyes of so many, it's perverted. Would you consider f**king a cow or a dog as a good way of life? So, the only problem I have is that a small minority tries to impose its views on the overwhelming majority. Let's say I love my first cousin from the opposite sex. Will you approve me marrying her?

They want to be recognised as the equal human beings that they are. The Majority Vs Minority argument is a damned false one and you know it. What about scientists with outlandish thoeries which happen to be right, are you saying they shouldn't impose it on the rest of us because we happen to be the majority? Why, because they're the minority should they not have equality?

The reason you shouldn't marry your cousin (Unless you're a royal where it's encouraged) is because of the alarming deformities from a limited gene pool and all the other problems which come with it.

You can't help who you fall in love with, although I'd advise against moving in with your cousin there's not a lot anyone could say to make you feel differently.

But, I don't want them telling me that I need to change the laws in the country so that the definition of marriage and parents fits their perverted lifestyle.

Do you also object to the dictionary being revised every year? How does allowing gays to marry affect your own marriage?

And let's face it. When something is supported by such a small minority and finds disproval in the eyes of so many, it's perverted. Would you consider f**king a cow or a dog as a good way of life? So, the only problem I have is that a small minority tries to impose its views on the overwhelming majority. Let's say I love my first cousin from the opposite sex. Will you approve me marrying her?

At one point black people could not marry white people. The same argument that you use for homosexuality was applied to mixed race marriages. Eventually people realised that there was no harm in allowing mixed race marriage, just like allowing homosexual marriage.

To answer your question, incest is illegal because it has harmful effects, not because it's morally wrong.

Secondly, don't tell me what evolution means if you do not understand it yourself. Simply put, evolution rests on two distinct, but equally important processes:

1) Randomization of the gene pool: This is achieved by the crossing-over during meiotic reproduction when the DNA of the father and the mother mix up. This clearly cannot be done in a homosexual relationship, so gays are out of the evolution story from the start;

2) Natural selection: There is a positive correlation between superior genetic makeup and success in the living environment. Since the superior creatures have the highest probability of survival, natural selection enables a mechanism of passing on the good genes. But, a necessary piece of the puzzle is that these superior beings reproduce themselves and pass on their genes. This, also, is impossible as far as gay beings are concerned.

So, evolution marks out gay beings from the start. If it appears that evolution has a purpose, it is because of the workings of the two above discussed principles. Their end effect is a kind of optimization, even though no intelligent entity is responsible for the development. Also, evolution is evident on such long time intervals that the whole history of the human civilization is just a brief period. After all, today’s humans differ slightly, if at all from ancient Romans, but gay sex was present in their societies, too.

And, we reach our conclusion. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, ultimately connected with the humans’ psyche and not their survival instincts. When civilizations formed, the evolution’s mechanism of natural selection was severely weakened, because there were living conditions even for the weak and it was considered uncivilized to eliminate the weak beings.

False. Elimination of the weaker genes by humans is eugenics, not evolution.

You are correct that evolution requires the strong genes to be able to reproduce. It also requires the weaker genes to not be able to pass on their genes. Since gay people can't reproduce, they will not pass on their genes. Homosexuality is fully compatible with evolution.

At one point black people could not marry white people. The same argument that you use for homosexuality was applied to mixed race marriages. Eventually people realised that there was no harm in allowing mixed race marriage, just like allowing homosexual marriage.

To answer your question, incest is illegal because it has harmful effects, not because it's morally wrong.

round of applause

Quote from: DanielPZC on June 24, 2007, 03:33:20 PM

I am just pointing out a fact. God made AIDS for a reason, to kill off homosexuals. It is rather obvious homosexuality should be illegal. We have the death sentence for a reason.

So since lesbians have a much lower chance of getting AIDS, even if they have sex with a woman who has AIDS, does that mean that God loves Lesbians?

God does not say to kill lesbians in the Bible, so they are okay.

@Chrisseti:
And what does science have to do with society? The Earth revolved the Sun even when the Church was at its peak and Giordano Bruno burned on the stake for his outlandish theories. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is purely a social phenomenon and this is what we have to recognize. Now, once we establish that, the next issue is to ask ourselves what human rights homosexuals are deprived of.

Thank you for explaining to me why I shouldn’t marry my cousin. It is because you are concerned about genetic deformations in my offspring, which, in turn, will produce a burden on society. This is exactly my concern about the effects that gay marriage would have. It is my sole belief that children raised in such a marriage would have a very high probability to be dysfunctional social units. And, also, if I had wanted to marry my cousin at the Registrar’s Office, I would not have been allowed to do so, because it contradicts family law.

@cheesejof:
I would object the revision of the dictionary if the word ‘Globe’ is classified as obsolete. Allowing gays to marry will certainly affect the family Law.

The ban of interracial marriages has everything to do with a phenomenon called racism, a black spot on American society, and you have to deal with that burden alone. Again, this is a wrong analogy and it is dangerous to draw conclusions from it. The principal purpose of marriage with respect to society is to create a monogamous heterosexual unit best fitted for the upbringing of children. Since people of all races are fit for this role, interracial marriage is possible. Gay marriage, on the other, does not fit society’s purpose and there is no need to legalize it.

And what does science have to do with society? The Earth revolved the Sun even when the Church was at its peak and Giordano Bruno burned on the stake for his outlandish theories. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is purely a social phenomenon and this is what we have to recognize. Now, once we establish that, the next issue is to ask ourselves what human rights homosexuals are deprived of.

Thank you for explaining to me why I shouldn’t marry my cousin. It is because you are concerned about genetic deformations in my offspring, which, in turn, will produce a burden on society. This is exactly my concern about the effects that gay marriage would have. It is my sole belief that children raised in such a marriage would have a very high probability to be dysfunctional social units. And, also, if I had wanted to marry my cousin at the Registrar’s Office, I would not have been allowed to do so, because it contradicts family law.

It's NOT a purely social phenomenon, though I will concede that it plays a part. How about the fact that they can be attacked for no reason other than 'being gay', no right to the financial benefits that married couples enjoy despite loving each other the same, if not in some cases more than some straight couples,

and as for your fears that children will be social burdens, evidence?

And i wasn't using science vs socialology I was arguing that minority v majority is a false argument

How about the fact that they can be attacked for no reason other than 'being gay', no right to the financial benefits that married couples enjoy despite loving each other the same, if not in some cases more than some straight couples,

Those are criminal actions and are sanctioned in civilized countries for whatever the reason (fighting of fans from opposing football teams is an example). Financial benefits are precisely the reason why they want gay marriage to be legalized. But, the benefits are given by the society as a compensation for the positive externalities that it draws from a marriage. Since gay marriage does not produce these externalities, no benefits should be given.

and as for your fears that children will be social burdens, evidence?

I have no statistical data at my disposal. That's why I said it was only my belief. Can you prove the other statistics that were raised in this thread?

And i wasn't using science vs socialology I was arguing that minority v majority is a false argument

This is the principle of democracy, remember?

Financial benefits are precisely the reason why they want gay marriage to be legalized. But, the benefits are given by the society as a compensation for the positive externalities that it draws from a marriage. Since gay marriage does not produce these externalities, no benefits should be given.

The benefits for society being?...

I have no statistical data at my disposal. That's why I said it was only my belief. Can you prove the other statistics that were raised in this thread?

So...talking out of your arse then...

This is the principle of democracy, remember?

Hitler was elected.... Democracy is flawed, as all governments are....

First of all, where do you come up with these statistics?

Google.

Secondly, don't tell me what evolution means if you do not understand it yourself. Simply put, evolution rests on two distinct, but equally important processes:

1) Randomization of the gene pool: This is achieved by the crossing-over during meiotic reproduction when the DNA of the father and the mother mix up. This clearly cannot be done in a homosexual relationship, so gays are out of the evolution story from the start;

False.  In every child there are genes found that are not identical to the genes found in either parent.

2) Natural selection: There is a positive correlation between superior genetic makeup and success in the living environment. Since the superior creatures have the highest probability of survival, natural selection enables a mechanism of passing on the good genes. But, a necessary piece of the puzzle is that these superior beings reproduce themselves and pass on their genes. This, also, is impossible as far as gay beings are concerned.

Sure, but the random changes in DNA don't tend towards "positive" behaviour and presumably, since homosexuality is so prevalent across many species, if homosexuality is genetic, which evidence suggests it partly is, then it must be a common mutation involving the sexual attractive related DNA.

So, evolution marks out gay beings from the start. If it appears that evolution has a purpose, it is because of the workings of the two above discussed principles. Their end effect is a kind of optimization, even though no intelligent entity is responsible for the development. Also, evolution is evident on such long time intervals that the whole history of the human civilization is just a brief period. After all, today’s humans differ slightly, if at all from ancient Romans, but gay sex was present in their societies, too.

It doesn't work like that, because no genes are passed on perfectly, so presumably it only requires a very small genetic change to make some gay instead of straight.

And, we reach our conclusion. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, ultimately connected with the humans’ psyche and not their survival instincts. When civilizations formed, the evolution’s mechanism of natural selection was severely weakened, because there were living conditions even for the weak and it was considered uncivilized to eliminate the weak beings.

The evidence shows that homosexuality is probably a combination of environment and genetics.  For example boys with an older brother are significantly more likely to be homosexual.

The fact that homosexuality is so prevalent across species suggests that it's entirely natural.  Otherwise what does "natural" mean?

Quote

First of all, where do you come up with these statistics?

Google.

I went to the site www.google.com and haven't found any stats there?

Quote

Secondly, don't tell me what evolution means if you do not understand it yourself. Simply put, evolution rests on two distinct, but equally important processes:

1) Randomization of the gene pool: This is achieved by the crossing-over during meiotic reproduction when the DNA of the father and the mother mix up. This clearly cannot be done in a homosexual relationship, so gays are out of the evolution story from the start;

False.  In every child there are genes found that are not identical to the genes found in either parent.

This is false. Please stop posting about genetics or evolution theory.

Quote

2) Natural selection: There is a positive correlation between superior genetic makeup and success in the living environment. Since the superior creatures have the highest probability of survival, natural selection enables a mechanism of passing on the good genes. But, a necessary piece of the puzzle is that these superior beings reproduce themselves and pass on their genes. This, also, is impossible as far as gay beings are concerned.

Sure, but the random changes in DNA don't tend towards "positive" behaviour and presumably, since homosexuality is so prevalent across many species, if homosexuality is genetic, which evidence suggests it partly is, then it must be a common mutation involving the sexual attractive related DNA.

My previous answer holds.

Quote

So, evolution marks out gay beings from the start. If it appears that evolution has a purpose, it is because of the workings of the two above discussed principles. Their end effect is a kind of optimization, even though no intelligent entity is responsible for the development. Also, evolution is evident on such long time intervals that the whole history of the human civilization is just a brief period. After all, today’s humans differ slightly, if at all from ancient Romans, but gay sex was present in their societies, too.

It doesn't work like that, because no genes are passed on perfectly, so presumably it only requires a very small genetic change to make some gay instead of straight.

My previous answer stands unchallenged.

Quote

And, we reach our conclusion. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, ultimately connected with the humans’ psyche and not their survival instincts. When civilizations formed, the evolution’s mechanism of natural selection was severely weakened, because there were living conditions even for the weak and it was considered uncivilized to eliminate the weak beings.

The evidence shows that homosexuality is probably a combination of environment and genetics.  For example boys with an older brother are significantly more likely to be homosexual.

The fact that homosexuality is so prevalent across species suggests that it's entirely natural.  Otherwise what does "natural" mean?

What does having an older brother have to do with genetics? Other higher species, like primates and dolphins, also form social structures.

Bushido used to have intelligent answers. But simple misunderstandings and ignorance of facts has really changed that up in this thread.

So, evolution marks out gay beings from the start. If it appears that evolution has a purpose, it is because of the workings of the two above discussed principles. Their end effect is a kind of optimization, even though no intelligent entity is responsible for the development. Also, evolution is evident on such long time intervals that the whole history of the human civilization is just a brief period. After all, today’s humans differ slightly, if at all from ancient Romans, but gay sex was present in their societies, too.

And, we reach our conclusion. Homosexuality is a social phenomenon, ultimately connected with the humans’ psyche and not their survival instincts. When civilizations formed, the evolution’s mechanism of natural selection was severely weakened, because there were living conditions even for the weak and it was considered uncivilized to eliminate the weak beings.

Homosexually is not a social phenomenon but often times a necessity to maintain social order. If you do not believe me then you need to research bonobo society

'Cept for that man that married a goat

'Cept for that man that married a goat

And the woman who married the dolphin.

I have spoken truth.

False.  In every child there are genes found that are not identical to the genes found in either parent.

Is this the result of just mutation or are there other processes involved?

Quote

Financial benefits are precisely the reason why they want gay marriage to be legalized. But, the benefits are given by the society as a compensation for the positive externalities that it draws from a marriage. Since gay marriage does not produce these externalities, no benefits should be given.

The benefits for society being?...

Quote

I have no statistical data at my disposal. That's why I said it was only my belief. Can you prove the other statistics that were raised in this thread?

So...talking out of your arse then...

Quote

This is the principle of democracy, remember?

Hitler was elected.... Democracy is flawed, as all governments are....

1) --
2) --
3) He was an excellent leader. Completely aside from what he ended up doing to Jews and other minority groups, he was an excellent leader up until about 1940/41

@cheesejof:
I would object the revision of the dictionary if the word ‘Globe’ is classified as obsolete. Allowing gays to marry will certainly affect the family Law.

The ban of interracial marriages has everything to do with a phenomenon called racism, a black spot on American society, and you have to deal with that burden alone. Again, this is a wrong analogy and it is dangerous to draw conclusions from it. The principal purpose of marriage with respect to society is to create a monogamous heterosexual unit best fitted for the upbringing of children. Since people of all races are fit for this role, interracial marriage is possible. Gay marriage, on the other, does not fit society’s purpose and there is no need to legalize it.

If we can go without quoting every single point here, your argument seems to be that gays want to enjoy the financial benefit of marriage without paying back society by raising a child.

My response is, straight couples who do not have children can still be married. The straight couple will enjoy the financial benefits of marriage just the same as any gay couple.

Also, gay couples can adopt children. They aren't worse parents than straight children.

And in fact, the research is entirely clear that the children of homosexual parents are equally well adjusted as their peers who were raised by heterosexual parents. If the purpose of marriage is to raise children, gay couples seem to be equally well suited to that purpose.

I love that lesbianism is practically 'fine' today, but homosexuality is still wierd.

And in fact, the research is entirely clear that the children of homosexual parents are equally well adjusted as their peers who were raised by heterosexual parents. If the purpose of marriage is to raise children, gay couples seem to be equally well suited to that purpose.

What about adopted children raised by a man and a female goat?

Well, sure, they'd be just as good.  They're used to dealing with kids.

Quote from: beast on June 25, 2007, 06:06:02 AM

False.  In every child there are genes found that are not identical to the genes found in either parent.

Is this the result of just mutation or are there other processes involved?

Mutation is a misleading word, because although "mutations" drive evolution in a sense, we're not talking about having 3 eyes or an extra arm.  The genetic mutations that drive evolution are found in all of us, and they're the reason why I might have longer arms than my parents, or a smaller nose.  It's important to remember that DNA is a very long chemical chain, and in most chemical reactions in real life, especially involving complicated chemicals, it's not uncommon to have slight changes to the make up and structure; barely noticeable but enough to have a small effect on the characteristics of the person.  So you could call it mutations, but because of the way religious people directly lie and mislead people about the nature of those mutations in order to discredit evolution, I prefer to call it genetic standard distribution.  I'm sure you've seen the standard distribution bell curve, and like everything else, dna passed on from generation to generation tends to fall into that; the majority of your children will be the same height as you, and only a very small percentage will be shorter or taller.