Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 17.01.2013 at 18:23

please back on topic about homosexuality and take heed of BitterCOld's post above your last one

Yeah, I guess we can move this to the "free will" thread if it's gonna continue like this.

More women for the rest of us... They're born that way, they can't help it.

I say just let people do whatever they want. You know, I dont really care. But if they do that like out in public or in front of me or around me I will say something. I have gay and lesbian friends so what. Theyre cool, but they know not to do stuff around me. They respect me and I respect them in a way as if somebody was putting them down I would have their back.

Written by Jtbmetal123 on 15.03.2013 at 15:18

I say just let people do whatever they want. You know, I dont really care. But if they do that like out in public or in front of me or around me I will say something. I have gay and lesbian friends so what. Theyre cool, but they know not to do stuff around me. They respect me and I respect them in a way as if somebody was putting them down I would have their back.

Question. If heterosexual people "do that like out in public or in front of you or around you" will you also say something?
If not it's quite a bit of a double standard.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 15.03.2013 at 16:07

Written by Jtbmetal123 on 15.03.2013 at 15:18

I say just let people do whatever they want. You know, I dont really care. But if they do that like out in public or in front of me or around me I will say something. I have gay and lesbian friends so what. Theyre cool, but they know not to do stuff around me. They respect me and I respect them in a way as if somebody was putting them down I would have their back.

Question. If heterosexual people "do that like out in public or in front of you or around you" will you also say something?
If not it's quite a bit of a double standard.

I get quite disgusted by hetero couples snogging in front me, so I really don't understand the logic. And by proportion, hetero's do it way more than any gay couple i know... so...

Written by Sunioj on 17.03.2013 at 00:17


I get quite disgusted by hetero couples snogging in front me, so I really don't understand the logic. And by proportion, hetero's do it way more than any gay couple i know... so...

Oh I totally agree with you. I am just wondering about the guy who says he has nor problems with gays (that also includes lesbians btw) at all but can't stand them acting as such (I presume he means kissing/snogging) in front of him.

And yes you're right hetero couples do it way more and even more openly and annoying than gays.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 15.03.2013 at 16:07

Written by Jtbmetal123 on 15.03.2013 at 15:18

I say just let people do whatever they want. You know, I dont really care. But if they do that like out in public or in front of me or around me I will say something. I have gay and lesbian friends so what. Theyre cool, but they know not to do stuff around me. They respect me and I respect them in a way as if somebody was putting them down I would have their back.

Question. If heterosexual people "do that like out in public or in front of you or around you" will you also say something?
If not it's quite a bit of a double standard.

Well, man and woman are kinda different, im just used to it. But I mean if a couple is going to sit there and makeout right in front of me and theirs children around I would say something. I mean come on, get a room.

Written by Sunioj on 17.03.2013 at 00:17

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 15.03.2013 at 16:07

Written by Jtbmetal123 on 15.03.2013 at 15:18

I say just let people do whatever they want. You know, I dont really care. But if they do that like out in public or in front of me or around me I will say something. I have gay and lesbian friends so what. Theyre cool, but they know not to do stuff around me. They respect me and I respect them in a way as if somebody was putting them down I would have their back.

Question. If heterosexual people "do that like out in public or in front of you or around you" will you also say something?
If not it's quite a bit of a double standard.

I get quite disgusted by hetero couples snogging in front me, so I really don't understand the logic. And by proportion, hetero's do it way more than any gay couple i know... so...

That is true, I just get disgusted by both I guess. Just go to your room and do it. Not when people are waiting in line at a grocery store or at Disney world.

Written by Jtbmetal123 on 18.03.2013 at 14:00

That is true, I just get disgusted by both I guess. Just go to your room and do it. Not when people are waiting in line at a grocery store or at Disney world.

yeah man, i used to say the say thing but over time i realized that both gross me out just as much.

It's rather funny how people thing them being offended or grossed out should affect how other people behave. I'm sure many elderly people would love for you to cut your hair, dress nicely and not wear those awful satanic rock'n'roll shirts, not to mention skateboarding or speaking on the cellphone.

If something irritates you but you realize it has nothing to do with you, it's probably smarter to keep it to yourself.

I've never posted in this topic, probably because I don't see this as a "touchy subject". So what if someone's homosexual? It's their choice, it doesn't bother me, it's fine with me if you're happy. And that's where I stand.

Written by IronAngel on 21.03.2013 at 13:00

It's rather funny how people thing them being offended or grossed out should affect how other people behave. I'm sure many elderly people would love for you to cut your hair, dress nicely and not wear those awful satanic rock'n'roll shirts, not to mention skateboarding or speaking on the cellphone.

If something irritates you but you realize it has nothing to do with you, it's probably smarter to keep it to yourself.

but thats so unamerican opinions are made to be thrown in your face, its a right as a citizen!

I'm pro-love and I'm for equal rights.

And I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

As long as both (or more) parties involved in any relationship are in full consent I don't see why it should be a problem. On that note, however, there is a time and place for everything. for example, if you know a religion doesn't approve of you, don't forcibly butt into it and demand they accept something clearly against their views on their premises. That will only make them dislike the group butting in more which acts against any commongood agendas. similarly, to both gay and straight couples, mind what you do and where you do it (ie, displaying overtly sexual paraphernalia or behavior near present children is probably not a good idea.) I can understand the resentment the gay community can feel for everything that is going on to them in today's societies, but that should not be an excuse to act foolishly especially when trying to gain respect in often conservative communities. Other than that, its no ones business what happens behind closed doors whether it is straight sex, gay sex or full on orgies IMO

Written by Irritable Ted on 26.03.2013 at 14:14

Written by Sinnercist on 26.03.2013 at 04:37

As long as both (or more) parties involved in any relationship are in full consent I don't see why it should be a problem. On that note, however, there is a time and place for everything. for example, if you know a religion doesn't approve of you, don't forcibly butt into it and demand they accept something clearly against their views on their premises. That will only make them dislike the group butting in more which acts against any commongood agendas. similarly, to both gay and straight couples, mind what you do and where you do it (ie, displaying overtly sexual paraphernalia or behavior near present children is probably not a good idea.) I can understand the resentment the gay community can feel for everything that is going on to them in today's societies, but that should not be an excuse to act foolishly especially when trying to gain respect in often conservative communities. Other than that, its no ones business what happens behind closed doors whether it is straight sex, gay sex or full on orgies IMO

Very sensible point. Completely agree.

I think it totally missed the point. In many cases, their is no such thing as live and let live.
Homosexuals are discriminated against and hated by many just for being homosexuals . "[R]eligion doesn't approve of you" religion sentences homosexuals to death, is there any way of making it dislike Homosexuals any further in their eyes? and religion is not convinced that what happens in your bed room is your business only. There is no such thing as "group butting" - their is a society, it's rules and groups that compete to convince other people what those rules should be.
You better voice your opinions loud in public discourse and combat for them without being docile to sham manners - or else you will find yourself combating with more than your tongue for your life and it's quality.

Written by Candlemass on 27.03.2013 at 15:37

Written by Irritable Ted on 26.03.2013 at 14:14

Written by Sinnercist on 26.03.2013 at 04:37

As long as both (or more) parties involved in any relationship are in full consent I don't see why it should be a problem. On that note, however, there is a time and place for everything. for example, if you know a religion doesn't approve of you, don't forcibly butt into it and demand they accept something clearly against their views on their premises. That will only make them dislike the group butting in more which acts against any commongood agendas. similarly, to both gay and straight couples, mind what you do and where you do it (ie, displaying overtly sexual paraphernalia or behavior near present children is probably not a good idea.) I can understand the resentment the gay community can feel for everything that is going on to them in today's societies, but that should not be an excuse to act foolishly especially when trying to gain respect in often conservative communities. Other than that, its no ones business what happens behind closed doors whether it is straight sex, gay sex or full on orgies IMO

Very sensible point. Completely agree.

I think it totally missed the point. In many cases, their is no such thing as live and let live.
Homosexuals are discriminated against and hated by many. "religion doesn't approve of you" religion sentences homosexuals to death, is there any way of making it dislike you any further? and it is not convinced that what happens in your bed room is your business only. There is no such thing as "group butting" - their is a society and it's rules and groups that compete to convince eachother what those rules should be.
You better voice your opinions loud in public discourse and combat for them without being docile to sham manners - or else you will find yourself combating with more than your tongue for your life and quality of life.

And here I completely agree.

@Candlemass: I totally agree. The day that the religious stop butting into gay people's lives and trying to force them to accept their views on the issue as sacrosanct, is the day that gay people should reign themselves in to accomdate religious people. If the religious are unaccommodating of gays, why should the gay people be any more accomodating of them? Respect is a two way thing, and is something that needs to be earned, not something that should automatically be expected just because you are religious. Religious views are no more or less worthy of respect than anyone else's views.

I do also very much feel that public displays of heterosexual intimacy are no less distasteful than if it were to be done by homosexuals. Heterosexuals need to be keeping that just as much "in private" and "behind closed doors" as the gays should be.

I've seen way more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples who can't keep their hands off each other or are practically fucking in public. The most I've seen from gay people is maybe holding hands, cuddling, or giving each other a hug and quick kiss good bye, none of which I would consider inappropriate in public. The gay pride parade around here is a completely different story. I have mixed feelings on it... While I do support the notion of gays not feeling ashamed of who they are and being given their rights, I think it also propagates the stereotype that gays are all kinky horny hedonistic freaks.

Written by Azarath on 23.03.2013 at 20:31

I'm pro-love and I'm for equal rights.

And I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

So you would support Incest? Because that is where we are heading. Also, in Netherlands we have Pedophile Interest Groups, registered as an actual group.

I am not for homosexuality, because I believe that it is a mental disorder, although, you have people that make it a lifestyle choice. They can have their equalities, but they will never convince me that they normal. If they are normal, what abnormal then?

^Yet another reason for me to hate this guy.

The ironic difference between incest and homosexuality is that incest was a common practice way back when in some societies, such as Egyptian, Baltinese and Inuit. They considered it to be normal and a productive way of keeping the bloodline. Obviously, homosexuals have no way to reproduce (that doesn't involve modern medical assistance) so they can't hold onto that. Yet, while incest has been proven to lead to birth defects, homosexuality associated with AIDS has been proven to associate just as much as anal sex in a heterosexual relationship. No, I don't think it will ever be considered normal. No, that does not mean it shouldn't be treated fairly and equally.

Homosexuality is not a mental issue, it is a lifestyle choice. Whether subconciously or no, I believe there's a period in our lives where we choose if we want to be straight, gay, asexual, bi, etc. I may be wrong, but I know for a fact that anyone who considers it a mental disorder is full-on demented, ignorant and/or just plain stupid.

Written by [user id=101272] on 14.04.2013 at 04:15

^Yet another reason for me to hate this guy.

The ironic difference between incest and homosexuality is that incest was a common practice way back when in some societies, such as Egyptian, Baltinese and Inuit. They considered it to be normal and a productive way of keeping the bloodline. Obviously, homosexuals have no way to reproduce (that doesn't involve modern medical assistance) so they can't hold onto that. Yet, while incest has been proven to lead to birth defects, homosexuality associated with AIDS has been proven to associate just as much as anal sex in a heterosexual relationship. No, I don't think it will ever be considered normal. No, that does not mean it shouldn't be treated fairly and equally.

Homosexuality is not a mental issue, it is a lifestyle choice. Whether subconciously or no, I believe there's a period in our lives where we choose if we want to be straight, gay, asexual, bi, etc. I may be wrong, but I know for a fact that anyone who considers it a mental disorder is full-on demented, ignorant and/or just plain stupid.

Well that is the next step, we already have incestious couples fighting to get equal rights, and if you think that is normal and ok, then I have nothing further to say to you. This just proves how fucked up USA has become.

I disagree. I made a separation in my earlier post. There are people that are born gay, and those are the ones that I would consider ones that suffer from an illness. The reason why it is not considered an illness right now, is because of Gay lobby in the 70-ies, and that is why the Doctor who was in charge of defining it as such removed it from the list. Few year later, he tried to reinstate it, but it was already too late, the Pandora's Box was open wide.
Then, in the recent years, because it is more socially acceptible, people make a lifestyle choice.
Of course we are demented, ignorant and stupid, but of course, when it is normal for a guy to shove his dick inside another mans rectum, and we think there is something wrong with that. We're very sorry, how stupid could we be and not see that that is perfectly normal? LOL
I just love your ad hominems, they are so awesome

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

Well that is the next step, we already have incestuous couples fighting to get equal rights, and if you think that is normal and ok, then I have nothing further to say to you. This just proves how fucked up USA has become.

Even if you're not American, O Pure Serbian, you gotta remember a time where the mere thought of a woman having rights was laughable in the U.S.? Back then it was a taboo, now (despite a few sexist dirt bags) it's history. Today, homosexuality is a sensitive topic. Later on, people will barely even second-glance it. Hell, I have no doubt in my mind that we're gonna have issues with robosexual rights in the distant future, and they'll treat it as they treat homosexuality today.
...And of course, there was the hilarious time where masturbation was punishable by death. Do the math.
The point: Societies evolve. I don't pay much attention to the news, but i'm not seeing any incestuous couples fighting for rights here, so you must be ahead of the curb. Congrats,

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

I disagree. I made a separation in my earlier post. There are people that are born gay, and those are the ones that I would consider ones that suffer from an illness. The reason why it is not considered an illness right now, is because of Gay lobby in the 70-ies, and that is why the Doctor who was in charge of defining it as such removed it from the list. Few year later, he tried to reinstate it, but it was already too late, the Pandora's Box was open wide.

According to World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, "while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality."
Unless you're talking about Doctor Who, I recommend you be more specific on which doctor exactly marked it if you want a convincing argument. And it's pronounced "70's" or "Seventies," not "70-ies."

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

Of course we are demented, ignorant and stupid, but of course, when it is normal for a guy to shove his dick inside another mans rectum, and we think there is something wrong with that. We're very sorry, how stupid could we be and not see that that is perfectly normal? LOL

...And of course a man shoving his dick inside a woman's asshole is a perfectly normal conversation starter? A girl fucking a horse is something you'd talk about with your mother? A man skullfucking a blow-up doll? Water-sports? Orgies? Under-aged boys fucked by amorous soccer moms?
No. Unless you're the type that likes public, those kinds of things (including M/M sodomy) happens, as Sinnercest said, "behind closed doors" for a reason.

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

I just love your ad hominems, they are so awesome

Boy, you certainly are fond of that word. Just learn it in English class?
I'm not implying that you're an idiot because you think that way. I'm implying that everyone who thinks that way is an idiot. You're just one in a statistic. If it's any informal fallacy, it's more of a hasty generalization, but anyone with the ability to see logic can call the idea that homosexuality is a disease moronic. This isn't medieval Europe, this is the 21st century. Society has evolved, as said above. If we haven't, we'd still be doing lobotomies with an ice pick and I'd be hanging from a noose for spanking the monkey to a picture of a girl showing her leg.

Written by [user id=101272] on 14.04.2013 at 07:15

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

Well that is the next step, we already have incestuous couples fighting to get equal rights, and if you think that is normal and ok, then I have nothing further to say to you. This just proves how fucked up USA has become.

Even if you're not American, O Pure Serbian, you gotta remember a time where the mere thought of a woman having rights was laughable in the U.S.? Back then it was a taboo, now (despite a few sexist dirt bags) it's history. Today, homosexuality is a sensitive topic. Later on, people will barely even second-glance it. Hell, I have no doubt in my mind that we're gonna have issues with robosexual rights in the distant future, and they'll treat it as they treat homosexuality today.
...And of course, there was the hilarious time where masturbation was punishable by death. Do the math.
The point: Societies evolve. I don't pay much attention to the news, but i'm not seeing any incestuous couples fighting for rights here, so you must be ahead of the curb. Congrats,

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

I disagree. I made a separation in my earlier post. There are people that are born gay, and those are the ones that I would consider ones that suffer from an illness. The reason why it is not considered an illness right now, is because of Gay lobby in the 70-ies, and that is why the Doctor who was in charge of defining it as such removed it from the list. Few year later, he tried to reinstate it, but it was already too late, the Pandora's Box was open wide.

According to World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, "while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality."
Unless you're talking about Doctor Who, I recommend you be more specific on which doctor exactly marked it if you want a convincing argument. And it's pronounced "70's" or "Seventies," not "70-ies."

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

Of course we are demented, ignorant and stupid, but of course, when it is normal for a guy to shove his dick inside another mans rectum, and we think there is something wrong with that. We're very sorry, how stupid could we be and not see that that is perfectly normal? LOL

...And of course a man shoving his dick inside a woman's asshole is a perfectly normal conversation starter? A girl fucking a horse is something you'd talk about with your mother? A man skullfucking a blow-up doll? Water-sports? Orgies? Under-aged boys fucked by amorous soccer moms?
No. Unless you're the type that likes public, those kinds of things (including M/M sodomy) happens, as Sinnercest said, "behind closed doors" for a reason.

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 04:48

I just love your ad hominems, they are so awesome

Boy, you certainly are fond of that word. Just learn it in English class?
I'm not implying that you're an idiot because you think that way. I'm implying that everyone who thinks that way is an idiot. You're just one in a statistic. If it's any informal fallacy, it's more of a hasty generalization, but anyone with the ability to see logic can call the idea that homosexuality is a disease moronic. This isn't medieval Europe, this is the 21st century. Society has evolved, as said above. If we haven't, we'd still be doing lobotomies with an ice pick and I'd be hanging from a noose for spanking the monkey to a picture of a girl showing her leg.

It's history? Really. Ok, if you say it is, it must be so. I think it is in a different form, but what do I know, I'm just a Serbian. However, you have the feminist movement in the USA, which is in some respects a greater threat to continuation of family units, because they fuck everything up and blame you for it, but that's another topic. Since you are so familiar with history, think back, every civilization that reached this level of depravity, was destroyed by its own devices. Homosexuality is a gateway to open the faucets of filth, to give way for Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia and Incest. That is the next logical step, or illogical, depending upon your standpoint. Oh, I'm doing the math. While I agree that human history was far from pleasant, that's not to say that they were not correct about certain matters, like this one for instance. Check out Netherlands, and you will see that Pedophiles are already fighting for their rights. You also have pro-Incest couples fighting for their rights in the USA, but due to them being a smaller group, they do not have the funds yet to make a bigger issue of it yet. Better to be ahead of the curb, then in the sewer drain, but that's just me. Called me old fashioned.

And you believe them because of...Let's see, you have DEA, FBI, CIA, HS, FDA and of course your "Democratic" Presidents, do you trust them? I do not trust any of these organizations, because like every institution they are corrupt, and easily manipulated. This homosexual agenda is a global issue, because they are making it a global issue, for what purpose, I cannot fathom yet, however, I can see one advantage, and that's relatively inexpensive population control, since you yourself stated that they cannot reproduce, and knowing the current trends, what is it they are bitching about, oh, that's right-overpopulation. I would like to see their clinical research, because as far as I remember, Kinsey proved that in a developmental stage of each child, you have an exploration period, where these interactions are normal, but that is when we as children do not know any better. I can't remember his name, but he was one of the 13 that was on the board of the American Psychiatric Association. If my memory serves me correct, homosexuality got removed from the list of mental illnesses in 1973-4, in the DSM-II manual, due to the homosexuals protesting in San Francisco during the convention. So, they had no "scientific" proof for anything, it was mostly done due to the lobby, intimidation... Another fun fact that you can research is what happens when a hormone gets released into a water supply, it can go so far to change the sex of a baby in the mother's womb. So you got wired in the stomach to be a girl, then some benevolent corporation, oh, lets say Monsanto, dumps some waste that carries hormones into the water supply, and boom, the child is born a boy, with the brain of a female child. It's amazing what science can do. Also, another fun fact, check out where some of the more interesting corporations, their subsidiaries and their factories are, and amazingly it's San Francisco and Minneapolis, two of the largest cities with the gay population. A coincidence? Must be. Also, another interesting fact, during that gay bullshit on TV few weeks ago, guess who got appointed a head of FDA? A former high executive of Monsanto. Wow, should we take some more drugs that FDA endorses, but has million side effects. Sure, because they are scientists and they know best. Science is unfortunately a form of religion as well, there is as much free thought there as there is in an organized religion, just take a look at all the scientist who had counter arguments for so called "Global Warming" which is nothing more than a political agenda, to make Mr. Al Gore a very, very rich individual. But, that is another topic.

May grammar at times may not be the greatest, but that is because I probably speak more languages than you, and unlike most of your fellow Americans, I actually try to improve my English, unfortunately what I have seen so far, majority of Americans are a bunch of illiterate idiots that do not know jack shit about their own history, but they are "Patriots." Right. The reason why I like to use that word so much, is because I keep running into arrogant asshole, that much like yourself have an American superiority complex, "We are the biggest, we are the strongest, we are the most powerful, we are vain and cannot see that we are broke as fuck, but let's go ahead and wage war on the rest of the world, for the sake of our failed Democracy, because we need to hunt the terrorists around the world, yet we have no clue where or what the rest of the world is." You are unfortunately in a statistic as well, all of us are a statistic, so your jab is very cool, but does not upset me. I disagree, I think we have relapsed to stupidity, descended into depravity, lost all sense and reason, but we find ways to justify it so we can feel better.
It may be moronic to you, but luckily, we still have a lot of people in this world, that see common sense. What logic are you applying to the issue of homosexuality? I am yet to see a decent argument for it, beyond what you already presented. What are your arguments for it being alright, how is it alright? Personally I could care less what these people do behind closed doors, but I am not convinced it is normal, because it cannot be. Don't worry, we do not need lobotomy for patients anymore, we feed everyone with Lithium, Hydrocodone, Lorazepam, Aspartame, Flouride, MSG, GMO, Saccharin, TV, Alcohol...and that is more than enough. The world has not changed, our perception of it has, that is why we do not see what is in front of us. I hope you will see that some day, but judging from your posts so far, you choose to show off, and be rude when you have no reason to.

"This homosexual agenda"

"Homosexuality is a gateway to open the faucets of filth...That is the next logical step"
Outright text book fallacy and your going on and on. This is so egocentric it's amusing. I'm surprised your not banned by now (actually I'm not, Metalstorm is a very tolerant place).
And what's wrong with zoophilia? Can you argue with for that conclusion (I don't know, an ethical truth to find maybe) or do you just use scary words that scare your provincial surrounding and hope it will do the same here?
Nothing scares me (or Peter Singer ), I assure you, so you better learn to do it better and change the subject to what's the truth instead of what scares the **** of you.
You sound very unconfident I must say when it comes to sexuality. Reminds me of homosexual priests caught red handed .

By the way, Patriots tend to create 'the state' in their own self-image, if you know what I mean.

Anyways, welcome to the forums ENJOY THE METAL, THE BEER AND THE EXCELLENT PEOPLE ON METALSTORM!

Written by Candlemass on 14.04.2013 at 22:21

"This homosexual agenda"

"Homosexuality is a gateway to open the faucets of filth...That is the next logical step"
Outright text book fallacy and your going on and on. This is so egocentric it's amusing. I'm surprised your not banned by now (actually I'm not, Metalstorm is a very tolerant place).
And what's wrong with zoophilia? Can you argue with for that conclusion (I don't know, an ethical truth to find maybe) or do you just use scary words that scare your provincial surrounding and hope it will do the same here?
Nothing scares me (or Peter Singer ), I assure you, so you better learn to do it better and change the subject to what's the truth instead of what scares the **** of you.
You sound very unconfident I must say when it comes to sexuality. Reminds me of homosexual priests caught red handed .

By the way, Patriots tend to create 'the state' in their own self-image, if you know what I mean.

Anyways, welcome to the forums ENJOY THE METAL, THE BEER AND THE EXCELLENT PEOPLE ON METALSTORM!

You are trying to say that there is no homosexual agenda? Really? That's very interesting, considering that USA is pushing down the belief that homosexuality is normal on the rest of the world. EU became the carbon copy of the US policies, so that's why, my homeland has to become "tolerant" and allow the parades to satisfy the vast minority. I love that, when you always have to cater to the minorities, because if you do not, you are a bigot and an evil, evil person. I especially love the fact that there is no discourse on this topic, that does not result in demonizing the individual that does not comply with the new idea/trend.
Why would I be banned for expressing my belief? This is exactly what I just wrote about few seconds ago, because someone does not like my logic and reasoning, I deserve to be banned? Nice, very "democratic."
Oh, nothing, Zoophilia is probably normal as well, since everything is now normal. Sigh. My provincial surrounding? What exactly are you implying?
I am not scared, I am disgusted, there is a difference. And what "truth" are you speaking of?
Of course, that must be it, because I am straight, and I believe that a union should be between a man and a woman. I'm actually more worried about you.
How are things in your country? Did they embrace the newly found US backed normalcy behind homosexual behavior? And if they did, does not that conflict with Torah?

Thank you.

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 02:17

Written by Azarath on 23.03.2013 at 20:31

I'm pro-love and I'm for equal rights.

And I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

So you would support Incest? Because that is where we are heading. Also, in Netherlands we have Pedophile Interest Groups, registered as an actual group.

Ah yes, because I simply declared myself "pro-love" and left it at that, I exposed my flank to the dreaded incest offensive.

The problem with the slippery slope argument / fallacy is that it's always taken to some bizarre extreme like people marrying dogs or having sex with cyborgs. It's lazy, because the people using it never bother to explain just how A will lead to B, B => C, ..., Y => Z. Simply stating "that is where we are heading" is not enough. And instead of sticking to the topic they attempt to shift the focus to something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But, to answer your question: No, I would not support incest. Now, stay on topic. Or demonstrate how gay rights will inevitably lead to opening "the faucets of filth".

Written by Rasputin on 15.04.2013 at 00:31

You are trying to say that there is no homosexual agenda? Really? That's very interesting, considering that USA is pushing down the belief that homosexuality is normal on the rest of the world. EU became the carbon copy of the US policies, so that's why, my homeland has to become "tolerant" and allow the parades to satisfy the vast minority. I love that, when you always have to cater to the minorities, because if you do not, you are a bigot and an evil, evil person. I especially love the fact that there is no discourse on this topic, that does not result in demonizing the individual that does not comply with the new idea/trend.
Why would I be banned for expressing my belief? This is exactly what I just wrote about few seconds ago, because someone does not like my logic and reasoning, I deserve to be banned? Nice, very "democratic."
Oh, nothing, Zoophilia is probably normal as well, since everything is now normal. Sigh. My provincial surrounding? What exactly are you implying?
I am not scared, I am disgusted, there is a difference. And what "truth" are you speaking of?
Of course, that must be it, because I am straight, and I believe that a union should be between a man and a woman. I'm actually more worried about you.
How are things in your country? Did they embrace the newly found US backed normalcy behind homosexual behavior? And if they did, does not that conflict with Torah?

Thank you.

How do you "push down beliefs"? A more fair way to present it is to use the word "influence". And the way it got their is irrelevant to it's truth or merits. So now instead of the usual Anti-Americanism it's the EU that is a carbon copy of America? "tolerant" is a word that has meaning beyond a glittering words people use to label things as "good" or "bad" as shortcuts - in a political theory - like "democratic". That follows (but not in groups with closed social dynamics) is to ask if "democracy" is good.

"when you always have to cater to the minorities...since everything is now normal. Sigh" - Your ranting really, bitching if I may be less polite (Israeli after all). Your not arguing in favor of any conclusion. It's very unpleasant to read and has no point to it since your having a monologue (and I don't feel like trying to extract something that looks like an argument from that). Try to instead to use fair language and explain what's actually so bad 'bout it.
"Why would I be banned for expressing my belief?" - Because they are vile apparently, and I didn't voice the opinion you should get banned.
"union should be between a man and a woman" - Yeah, I think we managed to fully comprehend that by now, the reasons why thou are still in fog. Which brings us to my next point;

I'm implying you never read a book or spent too much time trying to understand people you oppose (Like Peter Singer for instance) - otherwise, most likely you would try to present an argument (add a full stop here if you may wish) from premises your interlocutors would find plausible and not simply repeating yourself and sharing your "disgust" and fears with us - clearly given the logical failure - an irrational fear as far as you are concerned that failed to convince those who do not already share that "fear".
So please, try and explain yourself to me in a way I may see as understandable. SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH ME MASTER.

I'm an Atheist Jew that is not very fond of nationalism, do you think I care what "conflicts with the Torah" when reality does? [that's a rhetorical question, don't answer it].

Written by Candlemass on 15.04.2013 at 01:08

Written by Rasputin on 15.04.2013 at 00:31

You are trying to say that there is no homosexual agenda? Really? That's very interesting, considering that USA is pushing down the belief that homosexuality is normal on the rest of the world. EU became the carbon copy of the US policies, so that's why, my homeland has to become "tolerant" and allow the parades to satisfy the vast minority. I love that, when you always have to cater to the minorities, because if you do not, you are a bigot and an evil, evil person. I especially love the fact that there is no discourse on this topic, that does not result in demonizing the individual that does not comply with the new idea/trend.
Why would I be banned for expressing my belief? This is exactly what I just wrote about few seconds ago, because someone does not like my logic and reasoning, I deserve to be banned? Nice, very "democratic."
Oh, nothing, Zoophilia is probably normal as well, since everything is now normal. Sigh. My provincial surrounding? What exactly are you implying?
I am not scared, I am disgusted, there is a difference. And what "truth" are you speaking of?
Of course, that must be it, because I am straight, and I believe that a union should be between a man and a woman. I'm actually more worried about you.
How are things in your country? Did they embrace the newly found US backed normalcy behind homosexual behavior? And if they did, does not that conflict with Torah?

Thank you.

How do you "push down beliefs"? A more fair way to present it is to use the word "influence". And the way it got their is irrelevant to it's truth or merits. So now instead of the usual Anti-Americanism it's the EU that is a carbon copy of America? "tolerant" is a word that has meaning beyond a glittering words people use to label things as "good" or "bad" as shortcuts - in a political theory - like "democratic". That follows (but not in groups with closed social dynamics) is to ask if "democracy" is good.

"when you always have to cater to the minorities...since everything is now normal. Sigh" - Your ranting really, bitching if I may be less polite (Israeli after all). Your not arguing in favor of any conclusion. It's very unpleasant to read and has no point to it since your having a monologue (and I don't feel like trying to extract something that looks like an argument from that). Try to instead to use fair language and explain what's actually so bad 'bout it.
"Why would I be banned for expressing my belief?" - Because they are vile apparently, and I didn't voice the opinion you should get banned.
"union should be between a man and a woman" - Yeah, I think we managed to fully comprehend that by now, the reasons why thou are still in fog. Which brings us to my next point;

I'm implying you never read a book or spent too much time trying to understand people you oppose (Like Peter Singer for instance) - otherwise, most likely you would try to present an argument (add a full stop here if you may wish) from premises your interlocutors would find plausible and not simply repeating yourself and sharing your "disgust" and fears with us - clearly given the logical failure - an irrational fear as far as you are concerned that failed to convince those who do not already share that "fear".
So please, try and explain yourself to me in a way I may see as understandable. SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH ME MASTER.

I'm an Atheist Jew that is not very fond of nationalism, do you think I care what "conflicts with the Torah" when reality does? [that's a rhetorical question, don't answer it].

Well let's see, in case of my country, it were threats with sanctions, embargo and to an extent even war. Now the war would not be fought over that issue, but it would be fought regardless, and once the country is demolished, and appropriate people removed, then it is easy to do whatever you need to do. Perfect example-Slobodan Milosevic, Gadafi, Saddam...all of those were taken down by the USA for various reasons, some economical, some political and some simply because they can, but I am straying from the topic.
Isn't it? EU has been pushing exactly the same policies as the USA and vice versa, so there is more to it than meets the eye. So the way someone influences you/your actions/your life is irrelevant? So if I take your mother hostage and threaten to kill her if you do not do what I tell you is irrelevant to its truths and merits? I beg to differ. That's a pretty strange thing to say.

I'm trying to point out the fact, that the majority is all of a sudden catering to the needs of the vast minority. What damn logic is that? So, if you lived in a community with lets say three Palestinians, and they wanted to do what they liked, let's say build a Mosque by demolishing your house, would you cater to them and allow it to happen or would you fight? My comparison may not be the greatest, but it is explaining the sentiment. Since when do us straight people need to bow down to the needs of the gay people? Somehow, the majority always needs to be sensitive to feelings of the minority. That's how it is in USA, EU, and even my country. It makes no sense.

I think it should be obvious by now why the union between the two opposites is wrong and unnatural. If it is natural, a lesbian and a lesbian or a homosexual and a homosexual would be able to have an offspring, yet they shockingly cannot, unless they adopt of artificially inseminate. I said it before, I could not care less for them getting married, that does not concern me, as much as them pushing for everyone to accept is normal. Well, animals do it. So what now, just because animals do it, we should do it? Animals eat their young, commit incest, lick their own ass and have no reasoning capability like humans do (sadly a lot of humans do not use it when they should but...another topic again). So we either elevate the animal to the level of man, or we bring man to the level of animal.

Now, I want some reasoning why it should be accepted as normal, since I cannot get that from anyone, except from the usual "animal/scientific" standpoint.

Written by Azarath on 15.04.2013 at 00:45

Written by Rasputin on 14.04.2013 at 02:17

Written by Azarath on 23.03.2013 at 20:31

I'm pro-love and I'm for equal rights.

And I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

So you would support Incest? Because that is where we are heading. Also, in Netherlands we have Pedophile Interest Groups, registered as an actual group.

Ah yes, because I simply declared myself "pro-love" and left it at that, I exposed my flank to the dreaded incest offensive.

The problem with the slippery slope argument / fallacy is that it's always taken to some bizarre extreme like people marrying dogs or having sex with cyborgs. It's lazy, because the people using it never bother to explain just how A will lead to B, B => C, ..., Y => Z. Simply stating "that is where we are heading" is not enough. And instead of sticking to the topic they attempt to shift the focus to something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But, to answer your question: No, I would not support incest. Now, stay on topic. Or demonstrate how gay rights will inevitably lead to opening "the faucets of filth".

Well, you say "pro-love" and what I think about is the argument I have been hearing for a while now, especially when faced with defenders of homosexual behavior. Usually I hear, "what ever happens between two consenting adults should be legal," and that's the place they end their argument at. So, two males or two females by that logic are normal and fine. The next group, that will argue for their rights will be pro-incest groups, but they will wait for the right time, since it is not their time yet, they have to wait for the liberal views to spread further. Homosexual approval did not occur over night, it was a plan that took quite a few years to achieve. And I think that these two topics come hand in hand, since both are regarded as sexual deviations, or should I say, both WERE regarded as such until just recently. But according to sages like Kinsey, they are probably normal as well, since it is normal to lust over your mother, or your father depending upon gender respectively.

If you today claim that homosexual behavior is normal, and you cast away all morals/ethics, you then have no leg to stand on to prevent Zoophilia, Pedophilia, Necrophilia and again Incest. Depending who you talk to about these topics, they have arguments to justify each. This is what happens when you state that humans are only animals, if they are animals, then everything is permitted, is it not? Where do you draw the line? You can't anymore. Like I said before in Netherlands you have Pro-Pedophilia group fighting for their "rights." But you do not hear anything about that, since someone wants to keep it on the side, because we first need to bestow the rights to the gays before we can move on. If I told you 60 years ago, that homosexual behavior will be not only listed as normal, but that these people will get married, adopt children and even get artificially inseminated, would you have believed me? That is what will happen with this. It will take some time, a lot of money, and enough of the popular individuals to endorse it, and half of the battle is already won. Of course you will have your religious people, or people like myself who do not see any evidence to suggest that any of this is normal, and attempt to block it, but they/we will be called close minded bigots, degenerates etc. without any of our arguments or concerns getting assessed. And that is the future that I see unfortunately. And just a reminder, every single advanced civilization/empire that existed, had some form of these practices listed as normal. Japan/Greece, had pedophilia as something normal, and furthermore there were even tribes that practiced cannibalism of their dead within the rule of Rome. Necrofillia was not something that was not unheard of either, and in China for instance they trained animals to sexually please humans. So you tell me if that could not happen again? History repeats itself, and it is not surprising that this is occurring in the USA, since USA is the stepchild of "democracy."

Mr Rasputin, here is why homosexuality is normal:

First of all: sex. The view that the only purpose of sex is procreation is flawed. Sex has at least two functions: procreation and building intimacy. While homosexuals cannot have sex to reproduce, they certainly can use it for the latter purpose. Since the procreation function of sex is something that is actually used very rarely, it has a rather small influence on day to day sexual behavior. So, does it really matter if a couple can have children from their sexual relationship? The decision to reproduce is one that both straight and gay couples have to make and this is the only time when they'd treat their sexual intercourse as a means of procreation. Otherwise, the lives of straight and gay couples are pretty much the same (ie. normal): they fuck on a regular basis and their relationship becomes more intimate. This brings us to the next point.

In terms of survival of the species, it is preferable for children to be raised by well-adjusted couples. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce but they can make a very successful family unit, as countless studies show. A straight couple would first try to reproduce naturally and if this is not possible, their next step would probably be adoption. A gay couple would automatically have to go for the adoption, but is that really so different than what an infertile straight couple would do? There are plenty of children in the system who would really benefit from being raised in a family unit. In other words, accepting homosexuality as normal would be a beneficial decision in terms of evolution - it would increase the pool of capable parents in society and thus lead to less crime, mental illness (I mean the real kind of mental illness, like sociopathy) and other very, very undesirable things.

The same cannot be said about pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia or incest, or any other sexual deviation of this sort that you might be inclined to bring up. These deviations do not aid in the survival of the human species and therefore cannot be considered normal. Pedophilia is a type of rape, incest produces retarded babies, zoophilia and necrophilia obviously don't help us in any way either

Written by jupitreas on 15.04.2013 at 06:52

Mr Rasputin, here is why homosexuality is normal:

First of all: sex. The view that the only purpose of sex is procreation is flawed. Sex has at least two functions: procreation and building intimacy. While homosexuals cannot have sex to reproduce, they certainly can use it for the latter purpose. Since the procreation function of sex is something that is actually used very rarely, it has a rather small influence on day to day sexual behavior. So, does it really matter if a couple can have children from their sexual relationship? The decision to reproduce is one that both straight and gay couples have to make and this is the only time when they'd treat their sexual intercourse as a means of procreation. Otherwise, the lives of straight and gay couples are pretty much the same (ie. normal): they fuck on a regular basis and their relationship becomes more intimate. This brings us to the next point.

In terms of survival of the species, it is preferable for children to be raised by well-adjusted couples. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce but they can make a very successful family unit, as countless studies show. A straight couple would first try to reproduce naturally and if this is not possible, their next step would probably be adoption. A gay couple would automatically have to go for the adoption, but is that really so different than what an infertile straight couple would do? There are plenty of children in the system who would really benefit from being raised in a family unit. In other words, accepting homosexuality as normal would be a beneficial decision in terms of evolution - it would increase the pool of capable parents in society and thus lead to less crime, mental illness (I mean the real kind of mental illness, like sociopathy) and other very, very undesirable things.

The same cannot be said about pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia or incest, or any other sexual deviation of this sort that you might be inclined to bring up. These deviations do not aid in the survival of the human species and therefore cannot be considered normal. Pedophilia is a type of rape, incest produces retarded babies, zoophilia and necrophilia obviously don't help us in any way either

Finally some arguments I can counter argue.

It's flawed according to whom? All the species on the planet are going towards a single purpose, and that purpose is procreation, and continuation of their genes. Isn't sex in a certain way intimate in itself? I would say that being in a relationship, and having sex is actually being intimate with someone, however, you can also be intimate without having sex, since the intimacy lies in the mind, and not in any physical act. I think you using nature and nurture in a wrong way. The natural aspect of sex is to provide an offspring, the nurture aspect is what you have been condition to do by society. So, society right now might not be looking towards procreation, but that was not the case in the past. Our culture became single serving, so now its socially acceptable to go and sleep with everything that walks, and that is the problem of our world, because it turned sex into a joke. It is similar, but one is natural, the other one isn't. I already heard the argument, that he animals engage in homosexual activity, but again, we are humans, we should know better, and the animals do not stay in these "relationships," because they are driven by hormones and instincts solely. In the end the survival instinct overtakes.

Hmm, I wonder about those studies. Some days I wonder, if they were not all dressed up and influenced so it would look like everything is doing great. But I do not have information on then, so I will not open my mouth about the things I do not know. Well, I remember reading a study or two, where the depression rates, and sexual confusion in the children were much higher in the homosexual familial units. Honestly, that type of a unit is a mockery of a family unit, it will never be the same, but that is my opinion. In my eyes, accepting homosexuality is a form of retardation for mankind, because I still label it as a disease/disorder, like PTSD, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder etc. And like I said before, it got removed from the list where it belongs, due to the political reasons, and not an actual study. So tomorrow, when someone pays enough money, we can remove psychopaths from the list, and they are magically cured. That's what's irritating. I did enough research to understand how easy it actually is to change the sexual orientation of someone by hitting him/her with hormones or mutagens that change the DNA. Something like this was witnessed by my Biology Professor, who specialized in reptiles. He studied. I believe, alligators and crocodiles, and he found something shocking. There was a factory nearby that released chemicals in the water, and some of that water entered the natural habitat of these reptiles, and some still growing reptiles changed their sex, changed to have both sexes, or were without any sexual markers. In child development class, we learned that if a mother ingests these hormones, or a substance that triggers/agonizes the production of the hormones, the child's sex can change while it is still in the womb. So, that is why I see homosexuality as either a mental disorder, or a lifestyle choice, but I wonder how much of that choice is actually the influence of ones environment.

Well, you cannot argue against it, if you accept homosexuality. Like I said before, nothing separates one sexual deviation from another, except the current trends. If we go by your logic, and two individuals become intimate regardless of gender, then why couldn't they have sex with animals? They are not hurting anyone, especially if both of them share an animal. In the same way, what's then wrong with threesomes, foursomes? All consenting adults right, so its normal, right? Necrophilia, same thing, you have people who want to be intimate with a corpse. There are people that are intimate with trees, cars, balloons and walls. They are not hurting anyone, they are just being intimate, since procreation is not important anymore. Same thing with incest, if it is an intimate relationship between two individuals that choose not to procreate or cannot procreate, then they should adopt as well, and that is normal too, since again, sex does not matter and is not important since sex for procreation is used rarely. Homosexuality does not aid in the survival of the species either, unless they adopt, but if they do not adopt, then they have no purpose, since one of your main arguments was the benefit of adoption. For pedophilia I might agree, but then we have the the cultural background, because remember, not every country follows the 18 year old rule. And, like I mentioned before, "civilized empires" did not frown on that either. So, its just a matter of time. So, like I said, once you remove some of the standards that held society together, everything falls apart.

Chinquia for your arguments. I am waiting for your response.