Board index › Age/Gender related discussions › LGBT Discussion

An Open Question To Anti-Gays: What Is Wrong With It?

Page 4 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,354
Location: Over there

20 Oct 2011, 4:47 pm

Azagthoth wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
@Azagthoth: No; different opinions are welcome but misinformed bigotry is not. It's really that simple.
Defiler is just pointing out how homosexuals are in no way special. In fact, they should just keep to themselves. The fact that it's part of a political platform is ridiculous.
And you're just trying to chrome-plate a turd.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Azagthoth
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 4:48 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Azagthoth wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
@Azagthoth: No; different opinions are welcome but misinformed bigotry is not. It's really that simple.
Defiler is just pointing out how homosexuals are in no way special. In fact, they should just keep to themselves. The fact that it's part of a political platform is ridiculous.
And you're just trying to chrome plate a turd.


You're good at derailing discussion, aren't you? Don't expect me to take your seriously, henceforth.



Q-Tip
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 4:50 pm

I love how the Left can reduce human thought to simplistic binary oppositions....either you're with us (A) or you're against us (B) with no middle ground. It's the same closed minded dogmaticism one encounters in religious fundamentalists. Have fun with your strawmen and ad hominems.



Q-Tip
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 4:53 pm

Also, why is it that genetics are nonexistent when it comes to race, gender, and intelligience quotias but sudeenly become the sole determining factor when sexual orientation comes into deabte?



Defiler
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 4:53 pm

mushroo wrote:
Sooooo many things I could reply to here, so I'll just pick one:

Defiler wrote:
3. Cultural degeneracy. Homosexuals perceive and proclaim themselves as "special" (a result from narcissism) and relentlessly fight for special privileges and recognition based on a biological defect, thus perpetuating the American culture of narcissism. End result is a society where everyone is obsessed with their own gain in social status rather than working to advance society.


First of all homosexuality is not a "biological defect." It is simply a personal preference of where you enjoy putting your **** in the privacy of your own home. It's a simple matter of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and really isn't anyone else's business but your own.

Second before you accuse anyone of "cultural degeneracy" I assume you like watching TV, going to the movies, wearing clothes, reading books, living in a nice house in a safe country, and so forth? Gays and lesbians are movie stars, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, singers, construction workers, teachers, writers, politicians, soldiers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers; all working hard to "advance society" just like everybody else.

Finally of course homosexuals are "special" because everybody is special. At least that's what Mr. Rogers told me growing up. If it's not true then I don't want to know. :)


The scientific community would disagree with that, at least until they were pressured by the forces of political correctness (not science) to change their conclusion. Organisms exist to produce offspring, homosexuality prevents that. Thus it is a defect, though in itself, it's not a problematic one. HOWEVER, the other tendencies that do correlate with it are problematic.

Also, your second argument is faulty. Just because gays are movie stars, doctors, etc. doesn't mean they don't have a culturally corrosive effect as a whole. You're looking at it purely from a mechanical standpoint, which is only part of the picture. Also, I don't watch TV. It's garbage for the brain.

And no, not everyone is special. Don't be a narcissist.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 4:58 pm

Azagthoth wrote:
Percy wrote:
Hi!

I don't really care much about most things. But I enjoy reading a lot of science, and one of you said something about homosexuality not being a biological deviation. I just wanted to add that I read something (about a month or so) that said homosexuality was linked to genes, and affected brain developement. Well, you can read it here:

allpsych.(com)/journal/homosexuality.html


Yes, no one can say it is not biological, when we have not proven such a position. It was a rather nescient statement.

biological variation != biological defect

YOU have genetic variation, as we all do (necessary for a population to survive, in fact). that doesn't mean you are defective.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Defiler
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 4:59 pm

Azagthoth wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Azagthoth wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
@Azagthoth: No; different opinions are welcome but misinformed bigotry is not. It's really that simple.
Defiler is just pointing out how homosexuals are in no way special. In fact, they should just keep to themselves. The fact that it's part of a political platform is ridiculous.
And you're just trying to chrome plate a turd.


You're good at derailing discussion, aren't you? Don't expect me to take your seriously, henceforth.


"your argument ends where my feelings begin"



Defiler
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 5:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Azagthoth wrote:
Percy wrote:
Hi!

I don't really care much about most things. But I enjoy reading a lot of science, and one of you said something about homosexuality not being a biological deviation. I just wanted to add that I read something (about a month or so) that said homosexuality was linked to genes, and affected brain developement. Well, you can read it here:

allpsych.(com)/journal/homosexuality.html


Yes, no one can say it is not biological, when we have not proven such a position. It was a rather nescient statement.

biological variation != biological defect

YOU have genetic variation, as we all do (necessary for a population to survive, in fact). that doesn't mean you are defective.


Not all variations are beneficial.



Azagthoth
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Azagthoth wrote:
Percy wrote:
Hi!

I don't really care much about most things. But I enjoy reading a lot of science, and one of you said something about homosexuality not being a biological deviation. I just wanted to add that I read something (about a month or so) that said homosexuality was linked to genes, and affected brain developement. Well, you can read it here:

allpsych.(com)/journal/homosexuality.html


Yes, no one can say it is not biological, when we have not proven such a position. It was a rather nescient statement.

biological variation != biological defect

YOU have genetic variation, as we all do (necessary for a population to survive, in fact). that doesn't mean you are defective.


You miss the point. I am referring to our lack of knowledge concerning sexuality. It's a fact that we don't know the cause.



Krokusfan88
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

20 Oct 2011, 5:08 pm

For gays/lesbians who openly live their lifestyle, I'm almost positive that homosexuality is the result of an imbalance in prenatal hormones, the mechanism that determines sexual orientation at adolescence. I feel in more ways than one, that homosexuality is an unnatural anomaly. Socially, we are conditioned to sympathize and pity these anomalies, for being different... which leads some to emulate this legitimate condition through their own means of sexual deviance.

Homosexuality is 5% genetic determinism, 95% emulation, assimilation by the lifeless public.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

20 Oct 2011, 5:10 pm

This is getting a little out of hand, pipples!

Can we please try to make nice?



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 5:12 pm

Defiler wrote:
The scientific community would disagree with that, at least until they were pressured by the forces of political correctness (not science) to change their conclusion. Organisms exist to produce offspring, homosexuality prevents that. Thus it is a defect, though in itself, it's not a problematic one. HOWEVER, the other tendencies that do correlate with it are problematic.

your argument is completely empty. homosexual men and women are still capable of having biological children, which you seem to overlook - it is quite easy with modern science and surrogate parents. since they are capable of having their own children and often do, they are not defective at all by your own definition. you dug a bit of a hole with that argument.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

20 Oct 2011, 5:13 pm

Hrm....

Q-tip, Defiler, Krokusfan88, and Azagthoth all joined on Oct. 20, 2011. And the first posts they make are either bashing Jews, homosexuals, women, or Aspies.

I wonder what that implies.......

Free hint: I wouldn't waste my time "debating".......goblins. Just sayin'.

:wink:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Last edited by XFilesGeek on 20 Oct 2011, 5:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

20 Oct 2011, 5:15 pm

:wink:


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Defiler
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 5:20 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Defiler wrote:
The scientific community would disagree with that, at least until they were pressured by the forces of political correctness (not science) to change their conclusion. Organisms exist to produce offspring, homosexuality prevents that. Thus it is a defect, though in itself, it's not a problematic one. HOWEVER, the other tendencies that do correlate with it are problematic.

your argument is completely empty. homosexual men and women are still capable of having biological children, which you seem to overlook - it is quite easy with modern science and surrogate parents. since they are capable of having their own children and often do, they are not defective at all by your own definition. you dug a bit of a hole with that argument.


If it wasn't for modern science and surrogate parents, they wouldn't be able to. In a state of nature, it is a defect. They're just bypassing it with modern science. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a defect. A person can have bad vision, and compensate for that via glasses. Doesn't change the fact that they still have a visual defect.



Last edited by Defiler on 20 Oct 2011, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Azagthoth
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

20 Oct 2011, 5:21 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
your argument is completely empty. homosexual men and women are still capable of having biological children, which you seem to overlook - it is quite easy with modern science and surrogate parents. since they are capable of having their own children and often do, they are not defective at all by your own definition. you dug a bit of a hole with that argument.


Surrogate... as in, the actual definition of that term? Why would you want to replace natural parents with something else? What does that accomplish for society?

Fnord wrote:
This is getting a little out of hand, pipples!

Can we please try to make nice?


It's just a discussion. If you have a point to make, share your contention. Otherwise, I don't think you can offer anything to this discussion.