Get your paws off of me, you damn dirty homosexual.OMG!
Get your paws off of me, you damn dirty homosexual.OMG!
It's a mad house! A mad house!OMG!
A million screaming retards pounding the ground proclaiming the world is flat (with no evidence) against the one proclaiming the world to be spherical (with evidence) is not an argument for correctness.You do make for a good laugh though, Because I think you would be surprised how many people stand opposite of your podium. Not everyone likes riding the bandwagon..
Zero, if you are looking for debate that is fine. Ask whatever questions you may have.It means little if a blind man argues with me over the color of something.
This is a thread that was supposed to be about discussion, debates, etc. People like mullet through(you should be in Obama's cabinet) have to make useless posts, simply because they do not agree...
And I find it funny people ask so many questions and complain, or deny, and so forth...Yet never answer any questions asked of them.
I admitted death may not be the best policy, and asked for a restructured system for Uganda...but those who complained and yell are too incompetent to provide one. Mostly because their own "narrow" view and preference to attempt to insult others(being childish, que?) is more important.
When a man only answers with an attempted insult, it is only because he has lost that battle in his head and has no means to continue the discussion. You do make for a good laugh though, Because I think you would be surprised how many people stand opposite of your podium. Not everyone likes riding the bandwagon.
Never said I am the world authority of understanding these things. But I can at least enjoy not being so childish as to act as some of you have. Unique opinions? Often. Act like you? Thank God I dont fall that far down.
That I can understand and agree to. Which like I said in person, it doesnt get the same results it does on here. Maybe its the lack of being able to explain it properly or express it with tone/body language etc.Zero, if you are looking for debate that is fine. Ask whatever questions you may have.
However, you also need to understand something. You come across with a certain sense of lunacy (no offense intended). This lunacy is well above any sense of normalcy for the majority who are here. Your comments about death possibly as an option, or getting into fights, or the many times you have made reference to shooting a variety of different government officials. What I am getting at, is truly, you need to aspire to a bit of maturity, and not this childish drivel that will consistently provoke the responses that you do not desire.
You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.But the question I asked is can someone provide a better way for Uganda to go about their beliefs of banning homosexuality, while still keeping within standards of right and wrong on a worldwide scale.
.
Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.
An agreement between two individuals versus an agreement between multiple individuals?Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?
You cannot. The mere act of banning/punishing violates basic human rights. This is what you don't get.
^this.Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?
Name one "pure" race.
Mitochondrial DNA would like a word with you.
You guys surely don't have to agree with me, it is simply how I feel. My morals are different than yours. Does not make you or I the better person. For every ten people who feel the way you do, there's ten people who feel the way that I do. However, I can respect your stance on the issue.I'd like to hear of a pure race, too. I'd also like to know what corruptions take place when this happens.
I honestly never had a problem with Gay's doing civil unions or whatever it is. But marriage is something that did not come from the secular world, and is trampled on enough let alone letting something that is against the very laws that created our view of marriage step on it.An agreement between two individuals versus an agreement between multiple individuals?
Personally government should get out of the marriage/morality business. If people want to forge some kind of contract, then contract law should be the only application there.
I do not believe you can ban it without violating human rights. Additionally, right or wrong are very subjective concepts and evidently the view of them by the Ugandan government is different from that which I hold.But the question I asked is can someone provide a better way for Uganda to go about their beliefs of banning homosexuality, while still keeping within standards of right and wrong on a worldwide scale.
Oh... well, you've matured tremendously then. ((sarcasm))I admitted death may not be the best policy...
You weren't expressing a feeling, you were stating a conclusion based upon the premise that there is such as a thing as a "pure" race.You guys surely don't have to agree with me, it is simply how I feel. My morals are different than yours. Does not make you or I the better person. For every ten people who feel the way you do, there's ten people who feel the way that I do. However, I can respect your stance on the issue.
And you know this through you extensive World travels? Or are you basing your point of view around some articles from Wiki and other binary mediums? You have no clue what is truly going on in this world beyond your parent’s walls. Grow up, kid.America has taking a really weird twisted view on homosexuality that most of the world does not agree with.
Actually that happens to be one small piece he is actually right on mathematically. Remember that half the population of the globe is between india, china and pakistan.... Add the rest of the muslims, and there are far more people living in countries that don't recognize homosexuality as normal than people living in countries that do. Again doesn't make it right or wrong on either side as the majority believed the world was flat as well.And you know this through you extensive World travels? Or are you basing your point of view around some articles from Wiki and other binary mediums? You have no clue what is truly going on in this world beyond your parent’s walls. Grow up, kid.
No, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.Actually that happens to be one small piece he is actually right on mathematically. Remember that half the population of the globe is between india, china and pakistan.... Add the rest of the muslims, and there are far more people living in countries that don't recognize homosexuality as normal than people living in countries that do. Again doesn't make it right or wrong on either side as the majority believed the world was flat as well.
Ah yeah, well what is normal is always tinted by our own glassesNo, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.
Two cardiologists were arguing about what they saw in the mirror. After much gesticulating and back and forth, they decided it was just a paradox.No, my questioning was the, "America {…} weird twisted norm." That is almost as puzzling and never-ending as to argue what, "normal," actually means. It's a paradox.
Whoa, that's deep! :tongue2:Two cardiologists were arguing about what they saw in the mirror. After much gesticulating and back and forth, they decided it was just a paradox.
By telling you that I don't approve of interracial couples is not expressing how I feel? Interesting.You weren't expressing a feeling, you were stating a conclusion based upon the premise that there is such as a thing as a "pure" race.
You were asked to support your premise, that is all, by showing us an example of "pure" race.
There exists no such thing.
You cannot "corrupt" something that, definition, is simply what it is - a myriad of gene variations formed from a simple pool of DNA (mitochondrial and chromosomal). What exactly is it corrupted WITH?By telling you that I don't approve of interracial couples is not expressing how I feel? Interesting.
I did not make mention of a "pure" gene pool. In fact, I agreed that there is no "pure" gene pool. I just do not like the further contamination of it. (page 2 if you need to cite the info)
You can try and get all scientific, throwing all sorts of propaganda at me. But like I mentioned before, it's more of a morals thing with me. Sorry you don't like how I -dare I say- feel.
Apple juice.What exactly is it corrupted WITH?
I don't like it. I don't have to like it. I'm not going to like it. That's all there is to it.You cannot "corrupt" something that, definition, is simply what it is - a myriad of gene variations formed from a simple pool of DNA (mitochondrial and chromosomal). What exactly is it corrupted WITH?
Why is there an assumption that homosexuality is a basic human right, yet polygamy isn't?
I would still argue it is not a choice. Gays can't help that they are wired to be homosexual. I can't help that I am drawn to women and have only fell in love with them. I am wired that way as are most of us. But some are not. A lot of gay men and women want to have children. If it was a choice, being gay would just be a phase that would pass once someone decided to have children. But it doesn't. The only choice we have is to accept who we really are, and thus choose to act on either our heterosexual or homosexual feelings.in the end, any physical activity you are involved in is a choice, whether it be homosexuality, bowling, walking into a church, mugging old ladies, kicking a dog.
And i'm against any hate crime laws, as i've never seen a "love crime".
The word marriage and civil union is interchangeable to and means the same thing to the state. The state has no business meddling in the religious/moral aspect of marriage. To them, marriage is simply a social contract for tax purposes, etc. That is why a priest can marry you in the church but you still need to apply for a license from the state. And atheists can still get married at the courthouse without the blessing of the church.I honestly never had a problem with Gay's doing civil unions or whatever it is. But marriage is something that did not come from the secular world, and is trampled on enough let alone letting something that is against the very laws that created our view of marriage step on it.
Well, God created us free men free of choice. We made a bad decision in the beginning and thats why we are here.x2..
You are totally backwards with both of these. I said nothing about emotion or desire, I spoke of action. You can fall in love with a second person while you are married and there is nothing wrong with that, taking action on it is wrong as taking action IS in your control.I would still argue it is not a choice. Gays can't help that they are wired to be homosexual. I can't help that I am drawn to women and have only fell in love with them. I am wired that way as are most of us. But some are not. A lot of gay men and women want to have children. If it was a choice, being gay would just be a phase that would pass once someone decided to have children. But it doesn't. The only choice we have is to accept who we really are, and thus choose to act on either our heterosexual or homosexual feelings.
Your hate crime logic is a bit off. With this reasoning, what's wrong with murder? I've never seen a crime for bringing a life into the world.
Hate crime laws simply recognize that it takes a crime to a more sadistic level to criminalize someone simply for who they are. I can understand how a woman murders her abusive husband, or how someone might kill their spouses mistress in a fit of rage. I can't understand how someone would kill someone for simply being white, muslim, gay, etc.
I would be just as concerned if it was the other way around and gangs of gay men were running around murdering straight men for being straight. That would be totally fukced up on a different level if its hate based.
I do believe we are all accountable for our actions because we can control what we do and how we choose to react to things. I simply don't think a gay person can be blamed for choosing to act on it. If a man is gay he has no business acting straight and marrying a woman and vise versa. It just isn't right in my opinion.You are totally backwards with both of these. I said nothing about emotion or desire, I spoke of action. You can fall in love with a second person while you are married and there is nothing wrong with that, taking action on it is wrong as taking action IS in your control.
Similarly you missed the boat entirely on hate crimes. My point was that beating up a person because he is gay is no worse than beating up a person because he stepped on your toe. Again you are beating him up because of what he is, a clumsy fool. The start of violent crimes is always about what the other person is, whether its race, religion, personality, etc. Again, what else would be your cause of violence against someone? If you start a fight because someone is hitting on your girlfriend, it is you starting a fight because of "who he is" - a crass classless fool. And trying to say that race, religion, sexual preference is "out of a persons control", well honestly you can say the same for someone who is clumsy and unapologetic as thats the way they were raised.
No violent crime is a "love" crime, they all have elements of hate. By establishing a higher penalty for the EXACT SAME action against a specific group you are in effect saying its not as big of a deal to perform that same action against people of any other group that doesn't get protected. Again, your feelings may or may not be entirely in your control, but your actions are. I'm all for stronger penalties for violent crimes, I'm a fan of faster death sentences as well to keep prison costs down. Rape, child molestation and first or second degree murder all deserve rapid death sentences.
Homo's and iv drug users.you really believe that AIDs is a homosexual disease soley at this point in time?
It depends on geography. That trend is only prevalent in the so-called, "Industrialized West," whereas heterosexuals predominate both confirmed HIV and AIDS cases in the MENA states, the African continent, the South Pacific and Eastern Europe-Asia.Homo's and iv drug users.
I suppose that for that it partially goes back to the definition of whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture issue - whether its genetic (which is basically impossible due to the non-reproductive nature) or whether its the way a person is raised and their experiences in their childhood. Honestly its no different than any other social deviation in that respect. It just happens that its one that is generally harmless to others and is disproportionately glamorized by the media. And comically female homosexuality is generally supported by most malesI do believe we are all accountable for our actions because we can control what we do and how we choose to react to things. I simply don't think a gay person can be blamed for choosing to act on it. If a man is gay he has no business acting straight and marrying a woman and vise versa. It just isn't right in my opinion.
How does a heterosexual, monogamous, non iv drug using male catch himself the G.R.I.D.S. catch himself exactly? I know wimminz can catch the stuff relatively easily, boys on the other hand I was under the impression it took some doing.It depends on geography. That trend is only prevalent in the so-called, "Industrialized West," whereas heterosexuals predominate both confirmed HIV and AIDS cases in the MENA states, the African continent, the South Pacific and Eastern Europe-Asia.
What in the hell? So the said person should live their life within the borders of what the country or society allows, or deems to be appropriate? May I ask what your profession is? You seem to refute a lot of science and dismiss many claims.But if a man has no desire to be with a woman then true he shouldn't be with a woman, however if his country/social group strongly disallows homosexual physical contact then he can choose to be celibate instead of following through on his desires.
Yep, thats it exactly. That is how civilization actually works - the individuals agreeing to act as per the morals and expectations of their local peer group. Refusing to do so means rejecting the civilization of your local group. If you live in a society that believes in ritual animal sacrifice and you refuse to do so you are branded as an outcast. The "right or wrong" of that is impossible to judge because morality is always subjective, there is no absolute right or wrong. The Carthaginians believed in sacrificing their infants and although I believe it is wrong, they didn't. There is no absolute right or wrong at all, it is always defined by your civilization group.What in the hell? So the said person should live their life within the borders of what the country or society allows, or deems to be appropriate? May I ask what your profession is? You seem to refute a lot of science and dismiss many claims.
one of the interesting aspects of this particualr argument is how homosexuality is found in nature. My assumption is, since animals mental capacity is much simpler than ours, it is n ot necessarily a choice for them.I suppose that for that it partially goes back to the definition of whether homosexuality is a nature or nurture issue - whether its genetic (which is basically impossible due to the non-reproductive nature)
For animals that is true, but for humans there is no stating positively that all homosexual feelings are one or the other, which I probably should have been clearer on. Makes far more sense that there is some amount of overlap, with some people being more strongly wired that way genetically and some people less so, but nurture having some effect as well and our personal choices filling in the rest as far as desire to be with someone of the same sex goes. Still the act is entirely in ones control.one of the interesting aspects of this particualr argument is how homosexuality is found in nature. My assumption is, since animals mental capacity is much simpler than ours, it is n ot necessarily a choice for them.
This was actually Blacktail's post but as you quoted me...Well, God created us free men free of choice. We made a bad decision in the beginning and thats why we are here.
I can't find the original post containing THIS gem.
Please, do tell how "we" (considering I am 39 years old and have made around 33-34 years' worth of "choices") made a bad decision in the beginning.
Or...are you asserting that we have and will be judged/punished for the actions of others from a "just" being?
I would agree to an extent. I think the evidence of homosexuality in the nature leads more evidence to support is natural origin.For animals that is true, but for humans there is no stating positively that all homosexual feelings are one or the other, which I probably should have been clearer on. Makes far more sense that there is some amount of overlap, with some people being more strongly wired that way genetically and some people less so, but nurture having some effect as well and our personal choices filling in the rest as far as desire to be with someone of the same sex goes. Still the act is entirely in ones control.
Its pretty obvious that the ballooning in the last 20 years of lesbians is partially due to the encouragement by the media and young girls questioning that since they don't at 13 or 14 find any boys attractive that maybe they are lesbians. Not very different than blaming eating disorders on skinny models
by the same logic cannibalism could be suggested to be natural as well The urges may be natural but a conscious act of acting on them or not is what separates us from the animals. Its a natural for a larger male to beat up or kill a smaller male to take his mate in the animal world, would that somehow be appropriate in the human world because its common in nature?I would agree to an extent. I think the evidence of homosexuality in the nature leads more evidence to support is natural origin.
I think you and I are battling semantics. I dont deny that there is control of the urge, however, the urge is derived from a natural source.by the same logic cannibalism could be suggested to be natural as well The urges may be natural but a conscious act of acting on them or not is what separates us from the animals. Its a natural for a larger male to beat up or kill a smaller male to take his mate in the animal world, would that somehow be appropriate in the human world because its common in nature?