Why am I persecuted for NOT accepting homosexuality..

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

This is Adam he homeschooled his daughter until highschool where she enrolled in an online college.

Adam is a consenting adult. His daughter is a consenting adult. Hopefully incest rights makes more sense.

Or is the line drawn at incest? why?

I already said in this very thread that I don't care if you want to have sex with your cousin, sibling, child, or whatever other family member. As long as the two are consenting and of adult age, I really could not care less. The only issue I have with that is if they choose to reproduce. The children of incestuous relationships have an incredibly high percentage of having mental and physical disorders from jump and I'm against bringing children into this world already set to fail.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey



  
I keep saying this like people even understand what I'm talking about but I'll keep stressing it. An animal can get its genes successfully into another generation without having children of their own.

WALL OF TEXT

That has no bearing on what me or the quoted poster are saying.
Heterosexual relations still have to take place in some capacity for that genetic continuance (read survival) to occur. Not every animal has to procreate but some must and the ONLY viable form of sex that will yield offspring is heterosexual relations...making it heterosexuality the unquestioned point of reference in discussions of sexual normalcy.

   I'm sorry words scare you so much but what I posted is literally beyond the scope of your understanding but it needed to be posted anyways. Heterosexuality may serve a purpose, that may be why it is so prevalent in nature. Based on equations like hardy weinberg, mutations alone are not enough to explain why homosexuality is so prevalent in nature.

Heterosexual couplings have to take place, and in the case on eusocialism members of the population who forgo reproduction (sterile or homosexual individuals) may actually promotes optimal genetic fitness by taking care of the children of a queen or siblings especially when resources are scarce.

There is a long list of things human beings do sexually that does not yield offspring (anal sex, oral sex, condoms, fetishes)-should these things be banned and punished as well?

  

Heterosexuality may serve a purpose? 

Where did I say that homosexuals should be punished or sexual acts not yielding offspring banned?

Y'all just make up stuff to fit your arguments but can't answer logical questions or have an open minded discussion. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

If their lifestyle was truly natural, they wouldn't have to resort to artificial means of procreation.

Alas, real life isn't that cut and dry is it? With your line of logic, infertility in either male or female in a heterosexual couple and they're doomed, no?
Science help us all 

Theres the thing though...



Its not about them being doomed but if a heterosexual couple can't reproduce they treat it as an ailment that needs remedy...don't know many people that take pride in infertility.

In every other case....an obstacle which prevents an otherwise able person from carrying out their desires, without the use medical intervention, is deemed to be and sickness/impairment/disorder/disease. 




We're talking about a baseline of normal human health and behavior here.

Homosexuality was unclassified as mental disorder in 1973 because it became accepted by society and people who were once considered mentally sick, could now comfortably interact in a society which accepted their disorder. 

Have you ever sat down and asked a homosexual if they're happy with the way they are. Are you serious? There are many things in life we as human enhance with technology, does that make us less human---or does it only make certain people less "natural".


Again I ask, why isn't being black considered a disorder? People who considered being black as being less than human technically have a point based on your logic but of course you won't extend your logic to that because it goes against your personal agendas.

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

why is comparing race and sexuality so unaccepted? oh right...because simple folks believe sexual orientation is a choice

MEN regardless of who they want to stick their member in, or who they allow to insert their anal orifice for orgasmic pleasure make a CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DO SO

true, they make a choice to perform the sexual act.  but they don't make a choice as to whom they are attracted to.
i can only speak for myself, but i never consciously made a choice to be attracted to men.  i just am.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by 00david00

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by 00david00


in regards to the difference between bestiality and heterosexuality....
one produces fertile, viable offspring (required for species to survive)
and the other does not
same distinction can not be stated with regard to homosexuality vs bestiality

note: I am trying to argue that bestiality and homosexuality are the same thing, simply replying to what you asked.

homosexuals can also produce fertile, viable offspring. Not with the same sex partner but by being homosexual, you don't suddenly lose your ability to produce sperm or create eggs. Men can have their sperm artificially inseminated into a donor egg and carried by a surrogate mother. Women can be artificially inseminated and carry the child themselves. there is no similarity between bestiality and homosexuality. 

I never stated they lose their ability to produce sperm and eggs. We can make many unnatural things occur through various scientific methods what is the point you are making about being able to inseminate sperm into a donor egg? Naturally, homosexuality DOES NOT produce viable, fertile offspring. 

In regards to eusociality mentioned above in the wikipedia article. Eusociality with biologically sterile individuals is the most extreme form of kin selection. If you look at the definition of eusociality by Crespi here: http://beheco.oxfordjourn...rg/content/6/1/109.short it states that " definition specifies the requirement for irreversibly distinct behavioral groups or castes (with respect to sterility and/or other features), and such a definition excludes all social vertebrates, none of which have irreversible castes" So using eusociality to describe behaviors between mammals, even more broadly, vertebrates at all, is unaccountable.

And finally in regards to the point that heterosexual reproduction results in offspring that are infertile or not viable. Yes that is true, however that is not what happens MOST of the time. There are exceptions to everything, and simply saying sexual reproduction can be unsuccessful at times (in an evolutionary point of view) is not enough justification to say that it has the same capacity of reproduction as homosexual reproduction or bestiality.

The distinction is that homosexual humans ARE capable of producing fertile, viable offspring. Just not with those of the same gender. Everything about homosexual humans is the SAME as heterosexual humans other than sexual attraction. We live in an age where we no longer need "traditional" modes of reproduction to carry on our lineage evolutionarily. I fail to see the similarity between hetero or homosexuality and bestiality.
With that being said, if everything else is the same BUT sexual attraction, is that enough to designate homosexuals as second-class citizens by not giving them the same rights as heterosexuals?

 

[DeadsetAce]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

why is comparing race and sexuality so unaccepted? oh right...because simple folks believe sexual orientation is a choice

MEN regardless of who they want to stick their member in, or who they allow to insert their anal orifice for orgasmic pleasure make a CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DO SO

true, they make a choice to perform the sexual act.  but they don't make a choice as to whom they are attracted to.
i can only speak for myself, but i never consciously made a choice to be attracted to men.  i just am.

exactly. there's a choice to act on attraction. but you can't control or choose what you're attracted too. it's not a choice to be straight or gay. i'm sure there are plenty of gay men who choose to have sex with women to appear straight...but it doesn't make them straight.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by goldenchild9


That has no bearing on what me or the quoted poster are saying.
Heterosexual relations still have to take place in some capacity for that genetic continuance (read survival) to occur. Not every animal has to procreate but some must and the ONLY viable form of sex that will yield offspring is heterosexual relations...making it heterosexuality the unquestioned point of reference in discussions of sexual normalcy.

   I'm sorry words scare you so much but what I posted is literally beyond the scope of your understanding but it needed to be posted anyways. Heterosexuality may serve a purpose, that may be why it is so prevalent in nature. Based on equations like hardy weinberg, mutations alone are not enough to explain why homosexuality is so prevalent in nature.

Heterosexual couplings have to take place, and in the case on eusocialism members of the population who forgo reproduction (sterile or homosexual individuals) may actually promotes optimal genetic fitness by taking care of the children of a queen or siblings especially when resources are scarce.

There is a long list of things human beings do sexually that does not yield offspring (anal sex, oral sex, condoms, fetishes)-should these things be banned and punished as well?

  

Heterosexuality may serve a purpose? 

Where did I say that homosexuals should be punished or sexual acts not yielding offspring banned?

Y'all just make up stuff to fit your arguments but can't answer logical questions or have an open minded discussion. 

   Like I said, beyond your scope of knowledge.

Typo, I meant "homosexuality MAY serve a purpose" anyone with a brain could clearly see that's a typo.

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Alas, real life isn't that cut and dry is it? With your line of logic, infertility in either male or female in a heterosexual couple and they're doomed, no?
Science help us all 

Theres the thing though...



Its not about them being doomed but if a heterosexual couple can't reproduce they treat it as an ailment that needs remedy...don't know many people that take pride in infertility.

In every other case....an obstacle which prevents an otherwise able person from carrying out their desires, without the use medical intervention, is deemed to be and sickness/impairment/disorder/disease. 




We're talking about a baseline of normal human health and behavior here.

Homosexuality was unclassified as mental disorder in 1973 because it became accepted by society and people who were once considered mentally sick, could now comfortably interact in a society which accepted their disorder. 

Have you ever sat down and asked a homosexual if they're happy with the way they are. Are you serious? There are many things in life we as human enhance with technology, does that make us less human---or does it only make certain people less "natural".


Again I ask, why isn't being black considered a disorder? People who considered being black as being less than human technically have a point based on your logic but of course you won't extend your logic to that because it goes against your personal agendas.

L



O




L

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by cartune

So you do want the states to determine a human's right to love? 
But nah you cant compare homosexuality to bestiality 

 

You can love your dog all you want. The difference is wanting to put your penis in it's booty or V and whether the state acknowledges your dog was cool with that.
Maybe you really think that two consenting adults having sex isn't that different than an adult and an animal. Because animals are capable of the same level of thought as humans. Because humans can understand animal emotion. Because animals can talk. Because Buster humping your leg means hes TOTALLY DOWN and consenting.

Keep reaching though.

Dude I was agreeing with you 

No you're not. I was being sarcastic.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by goldenchild9


Theres the thing though...



Its not about them being doomed but if a heterosexual couple can't reproduce they treat it as an ailment that needs remedy...don't know many people that take pride in infertility.

In every other case....an obstacle which prevents an otherwise able person from carrying out their desires, without the use medical intervention, is deemed to be and sickness/impairment/disorder/disease. 




We're talking about a baseline of normal human health and behavior here.

Homosexuality was unclassified as mental disorder in 1973 because it became accepted by society and people who were once considered mentally sick, could now comfortably interact in a society which accepted their disorder. 

Have you ever sat down and asked a homosexual if they're happy with the way they are. Are you serious? There are many things in life we as human enhance with technology, does that make us less human---or does it only make certain people less "natural".


Again I ask, why isn't being black considered a disorder? People who considered being black as being less than human technically have a point based on your logic but of course you won't extend your logic to that because it goes against your personal agendas.

L



O




L

L

M

A

O



I can type in big letters as well but the question isn't going away, how is your mentality any different from eugenics being used in the past to promote racism.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

why is comparing race and sexuality so unaccepted? oh right...because simple folks believe sexual orientation is a choice

 

Im black from far away. You can choose to hate me or fear me from across the street.

What I do in the bedroom You wont know unless I tell you. 

And if someone is black AND gay he'll be judge by his skin color first.

That simple. STOP comparing the 2 

what's that have to do with it being OK to treat homosexuals unequally while we demand people of all races be treated equally? according to your little example, a person can be gay and not tell anyone and be treated equally, sure. but how is that fair, expecting someone to pretend to be something they're not?


thanks for proving my point by the way

Dude nobody said its fair
unfortunately I answered your question. 

 which was "why is comparing race and sexuality so unaccepted?" 

Its unaccepted because its not the same thing.  I hope I dont have to explain to you what race is and what an INDIVIDUAL's sexual orientation or preference is?

Basically your suggesting

If you like S&M dont hide it tell everybody 

If you have a foot fetish dont hide it tell everybody

If your a pedophile dont hide it tell everybody

Or whatever taboo sex acts if that is you wear it on your sleeve because apparently sexual preferences are the same as your race 

 

[Peep Game]

^^^^What's there to laugh about with that??? ^@%# like that used to happen, and if those people who still do have those same beliefs
had their way, it would be exactly that way right now.

***EDIT: That was for goldenchild

 

[antonlavey]

SCIENCE!!!!

  

LOL @ Golden Child practicing outdated science---homosexuality is a mental disorder.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

You can love your dog all you want. The difference is wanting to put your penis in it's booty or V and whether the state acknowledges your dog was cool with that.
Maybe you really think that two consenting adults having sex isn't that different than an adult and an animal. Because animals are capable of the same level of thought as humans. Because humans can understand animal emotion. Because animals can talk. Because Buster humping your leg means hes TOTALLY DOWN and consenting.

Keep reaching though.

Dude I was agreeing with you 

No you're not. I was being sarcastic.

 But would anybody miss you tho?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by cartune

Dude I was agreeing with you 

No you're not. I was being sarcastic.

 But would anybody miss you tho?

I would, genuinely. And I'm pretty sure many other NTers and his family would miss him


Yea, I know the ether burns slow cartoon....where are your chuckles now?

 

[goldenchild9]

Even those ignorantly false racial classification systems didn't attribute phenotypical differences to "disease", b.
But with that little insight to your thought process, I bid you adieu.

 

[Jordan8]

Real friends > Twitter Friends > Facebook Friends > Forum friends.....................

 

[noskey]

I'm convinced most people arguing against gay rights in here have never spent more than 2 minutes around an openly gay person at any time, nor had a conversation with any gay people. Because guess what, guys? They're just like us! Except they prefer their own gender. Only difference, I promise. They laugh at South Park like us, they watch sports like us, they listen to the same music as we do.

Why cant someone like that be allowed to marry someone they love? I'm still not seeing any proof that they'd put life as we know it at risk.

 

[DeadsetAce]

Originally Posted by Noskey

Why cant someone like that be allowed to marry someone they love? I'm still not seeing any proof that they'd put life as we know it at risk.

because religion has taught people to believe what theyre told and not to use simple logic. it's trickled down into things like gay rights

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Even those ignorantly false racial classification systems didn't attribute phenotypical differences to "disease", b.
But with that little insight to your thought process, I bid you adieu.

Oh so their way of thinking is false, but yours isn't?

Aite fam, good riddance!!!



Golden Child did his psychiatry residency at University of Goittenhategyspysgaysandnegroshazen in 1935----he has done EXTENSIVE research on homosexuals and has a very extensive sample size of heterosexuals turning homosexuals after trauma.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

No you're not. I was being sarcastic.

 But would anybody miss you tho?

I would, genuinely. And I'm pretty sure many other NTers and his family would miss him

Yea, I know the ether burns slow cartoon....where are your chuckles now?

Watch out, they might take this for homosexuality 

 

[noskey]

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

Originally Posted by Noskey

Why cant someone like that be allowed to marry someone they love? I'm still not seeing any proof that they'd put life as we know it at risk.

because religion has taught people to believe what theyre told and not to use simple logic. it's trickled down into things like gay rights

Yeah

Sad world, man.

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by Noskey

They laugh at The Simpsons like us, they watch sports like us, they listen to the same music as we do.

fixed it for ya...

... i HATE south park 

 

[00david00]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by 00david00

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

homosexuals can also produce fertile, viable offspring. Not with the same sex partner but by being homosexual, you don't suddenly lose your ability to produce sperm or create eggs. Men can have their sperm artificially inseminated into a donor egg and carried by a surrogate mother. Women can be artificially inseminated and carry the child themselves. there is no similarity between bestiality and homosexuality. 

I never stated they lose their ability to produce sperm and eggs. We can make many unnatural things occur through various scientific methods what is the point you are making about being able to inseminate sperm into a donor egg? Naturally, homosexuality DOES NOT produce viable, fertile offspring. 

In regards to eusociality mentioned above in the wikipedia article. Eusociality with biologically sterile individuals is the most extreme form of kin selection. If you look at the definition of eusociality by Crespi here: http://beheco.oxfordjourn...rg/content/6/1/109.short it states that " definition specifies the requirement for irreversibly distinct behavioral groups or castes (with respect to sterility and/or other features), and such a definition excludes all social vertebrates, none of which have irreversible castes" So using eusociality to describe behaviors between mammals, even more broadly, vertebrates at all, is unaccountable.

And finally in regards to the point that heterosexual reproduction results in offspring that are infertile or not viable. Yes that is true, however that is not what happens MOST of the time. There are exceptions to everything, and simply saying sexual reproduction can be unsuccessful at times (in an evolutionary point of view) is not enough justification to say that it has the same capacity of reproduction as homosexual reproduction or bestiality.

The distinction is that homosexual humans ARE capable of producing fertile, viable offspring. Just not with those of the same gender. Everything about homosexual humans is the SAME as heterosexual humans other than sexual attraction. We live in an age where we no longer need "traditional" modes of reproduction to carry on our lineage evolutionarily. I fail to see the similarity between hetero or homosexuality and bestiality.
With that being said, if everything else is the same BUT sexual attraction, is that enough to designate homosexuals as second-class citizens by not giving them the same rights as heterosexuals?

Imagine the same scenario but instead of homosexuality being the reason for reproductive limitation imagine some other factor. For example, take a look at incest instead of bestiality since we are talking about humans. Naturally, inbreeding will not allow for efficient reproduction. Now imagine scientific methods allow inbreeding between a father and a daughter, to create viable offspring, consistently. 
Everything about them is the same BUT sexual attraction, would the support for their rights be the same? I do not think so. Therefore our reproductive barriers should not be ignored simply because we have the technology that allows us to bypass them.

 

[goldenchild9]

So race is as malleable as sexual orientation now?

There are many cases of abuse resulting in homosexual behavior (temporary/long term/willing/unwilling/whatever) but what type of trauma would lead to someones race changing?