(Citizen)foreverserenitySeptember 17, 2006 13:17:19

Before you close it Elie, let me say that you shouldn't feel bad in writing it. You've made a lot of people think and bring their opinions to the forefront. It's a pretty heated topic and was bound to bring out discussions that would be disagreeable to some.

the only thing I feel bad about donna is that I assumed the reporter had his facts right, I should have delved deeper and did some fact checking of my own before writing this.

Also to think that some people here would think I was deliberatly lieing or twisting things to intentionally mislead.

The good thing about all this is once again I see that my needy self is once again making bad choices about who I think is a friend.

Maybe from a large societal standpoint and in certain parts of the world it seems easy, but more often than not in the familial relationships, it's almost impossible.

Yes San you are right, it is hard for family, I agree with what you say as well, I was and have been speaking in very broad and general terms all the way through.

I have a very good friend who is gay, a guy I used to work with at the Garden Center. I have no problems with the way he lives his life, and, along with Simon, believe that his should be given the rights of citizenship that he deserves for being a citizen.

I too have some very lovely friends who are gay, they are wonderful people and terrific friends. I too believe they should be allowed to get on with life and live their lives how they want. I just do not agree with them raising kids. My opinion. How that would affect their citizen rights I would not know.

I am in no way advocating - dehumanising or de-citizenizing them.

What I am saying is they have investigated the link of depression to gay people. They have investigated the genetics of gay people, have they investigated a possible chemical imbalance in gay people?

(Citizen)little-whipSeptember 17, 2006 14:35:14

You gonna call me a Jew Hater now or later, bro?

never would I say that and to intimate I might is a low blow.

further more I do not mind being wrong and have it pointed out. What does bother me is the obvious joy you got from it, the many repetitions of "plowing into a man" comes to mind.

I don't think this needs to be legislated. I have no problem with homosexuals but I don't want to watch. I think everyone's sex lives should be a private thing.

I do think that both homosexuality and heterosexuality can be normal for whoever is living that way. I really don't know that it's a choice. I never chose to like men, I just always have. There was never a day that I had to pick and from some of the gay people I've talked to it's the same way with them. They didn't pick it's just how they are.

As for what's deviant sexual practices, everyone has their own opinion on that. Some things that are completely normal and enjoyable to me might seem freaky to other people. I don't care but I don't advertise to the world what I enjoy and what I don't.

Whew...this article went nuts, didn't it?

~Zoo

This seems to be a perennial favourite for debate. The argument has been interesting, but curiously similar to an argument about religion, in that a lot of mutually antagonistic opinions collide, but not always as part of a rational discourse, backed up by facts. And when respondents have tried to inject some facts, they have often been wrong:

Mans [sic] penis was designed to fit with a vagina not an anus.

To begin with, there is no clear evidence that the penis and vagina were 'designed' at all, intelligently or otherwise. At the risk of grossing you out, here are the facts: Lots of heterosexual couples enjoy anal intercourse. (There is even a sexual practice called 'pegging' in which the woman anally penetrates the man with a strap-on dildo, that my more sexually active friends tell me is quite the rage in smart circles! )  However, 'man on woman' anal sex seems to offer biologically less obvious pleasurable benefits than for a (male) homosexual couple. The action of the penis in the (male) anus leads to a stimulation of the prostrate (the gland that produces the fluid in which sperm 'swim' after ejaculation) that is actually highly pleasurable. In view of this fact, if our bodies were 'designed' (intelligently or otherwise), the only rational conclusion is that at least some bodies were designed for anal sex!

I have always said that gay people are chemically imbalanced which results in them being gay.... also resulting in the higher suicidal rate...

This was rebutted quite well elsewhere, but I'll say it again. If you take any class of people and subject them to varying degrees of social ostracism, humiliation, irrational hatred and random violence, you would expect to find a higher than usual incidence of depression and suicide.

I think you realise this yourself, so you try to plug the hole in your argument with the following piece of twaddle:

Gayness has a wide acceptance generally speaking and they live peacably in and around everywhere.

As you are obviously not homosexual yourself, it is worth asking where you get this piece of 'information' from. Suffice it to say that, although some parts of the world are now a little more accepting of homosexuality than was previously the case, and some social attitudes in western societies have changed, a spectrum of antagonism towards homosexuals, ranging from mild distaste to homicidal violence is still the norm pretty much everywhere - with the antagonism weighted towards the homicidal violence end of the spectrum in many parts of the world.

That is not, though, quite on a par with this piece of gross dishonesty:

Gays can throw bricks through my window if they like ...

But they probably won't. In fact, as you are probably well aware, outside of a few safe 'ghettos' in certain large cities, most of the bricks (along with the baseball bats, beatings and bullying) are going very much in the other direction.

Personally, I don't view homosexuality as normal. One reason why, and this is purely scientific, is that homosexuality doesn't promote survival of the species.

No, this is not scientific at all. Or rather, it is as 'scientific' as those theorists who claim to 'prove' that some races are 'more intelligent' than others. Homosexuality has no significant effect on the reproduction of the species; when pursued exclusively it has an effect on the reproduction of the individual. With approximately 4% of men - and rather fewer women - being exclusively homosexual, there is no danger at all that the human population is about to plummet. It is even possible that a small number of non-reproducing individuals (of whatever sexuality) is an overall benefit for a species that has now reached 6 billion and counting.

To be clear, I have no argument against those who are 'disgusted' by homosexuality, for the perfectly good reason that they are not actually offering an argument themselves. So when someone says:

I have gay friends but don't admire their sexuality.

I find this is an honourable position. You do not allow your 'distaste' to get in the way of friendships.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Instead of a discourse on how immature we all are, you could have choosen to start a rational discourse yourself.

Rational discourse is always good. I hope in the above I have tried to do this. When most people are arguing purely from their feelings, informed by their tastes or distastes, it is clearly useful to subject their arguments to some kind of rational examination. I do realise though that, on this subject more than many others, few people will actually change their minds just because their arguments have been shown to unfactual and irrational.   

Homosexual vrs Heterosexual How can they BOTH be normal?

I also think it worth commenting on the title and subtitle of this thread. Why does it have to be homosexual versus heterosexual? Would you ever think of calling a thread "Jew vrs Gentile"? In those familiar, trite words that nevertheless reflect a simple folk wisdom "why can't we all just get along?"

As to "How can they BOTH be normal?" Of course they are! Just as Judaism is normal for Jews - but not for me - so all of the many and varied sexual practices that I have no interest in are normal for the people who practice them, but not for me.

Interestingly enough, it's not always the really smart people who 'overcomplicate' things!

What I do care about is someone who stridently defends certain 'protected minority classes' (like jews) while gleefully attacking others.

Do you feel the same concerning Jews and pedofiles or rapists...etc?

There has been such passionate give and take, I hope reopening this article inspires more debate.

Reply By: XythePosted: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 What I do care about is someone who stridently defends certain 'protected minority classes' (like jews) while gleefully attacking others. Do you feel the same concerning Jews and pedofiles or rapists...etc?

THIS IS AN INTRESTING QUESTION, I wonder what response it will get. I have nothing against homosexuals, I just feel that I do not need to know what they do behind closed doors, but they seem to feel not only must I know, I MUST accept it.

What amazes me sometimes is the debate put into Sex. I want people to keep me out of their bedrooms. Do I care of homosexuals raise children, who am I to say otherwise, I'm no perfect parent myself. Oh no!! Lil Timmy's parents are gay, he may be too.... Well so what.... Lil Johnny's Dad's in the pen and mom's a meth head, they let them parents raise him. I find religious overzellousness more offensive then Homosexuality.

As far as forcing me to acknoledge gay/straight in general conversation, screw that, hell, unless I'm your friend and give a shit, I don't care if you screw farm animals, cause it's none of my damn buisness to know. Someone being gay/straight/bi does not affect my life, even if they are my friends.

I have a mixed thought on marrige though. I don't like the idea of forceing churchs that don't belive in none male/female marrige to recognise/perform gay marriges. BUT I do think it's fine that the government recognises it. The gov isn't religious, that's the point of it. If a church wants to recognise it, then it's fine, it's that religious entity's choice, and the parish can stay and belive the same or leave and find a new church.

Well, there is my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Do you feel the same concerning Jews and pedofiles or rapists

xythe???

how far up one's ass must one reach to retrieve a question predicated on considering any ethnic/religious/racial group the equivalent of sexual predators?

xythe??? how far up one's ass must one reach to retrieve a question predicated on considering any ethnic/religious/racial group the equivalent of sexual predators?

Go f*ck yourself. How dare you come across to me in that tone. Think what you want. Until I here some atonement for your language and disposition, you will hear nothing more fom me. How uncouth.

Reply By: msladydeathPosted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 What amazes me sometimes is the debate put into Sex. I want people to keep me out of their bedrooms

first, nice to see you again.

 I do not want to be privy to what they do in the bedroom either.

I am old fashioned, I think it takes a mom and dad to give the child balance.