Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

SOMEBODY is obviously not up on their ancient Greco-Roman history...

Or Japanese history, for that matter. (Lots of historical instances of Samurai taking an interest in "beauftiful boys".)

In any case, that post was fucking hilarious. Talk about knee-jerk ignorance.

 

Samurai warriors were psychologically disturbed just like all warriors. So you are basically relating Samurai Warriors to liking boys when I have said psychological problems correlate with homo-sexuality... Therefore proving my point through you Xero-Chan. Knee-Jerk ignorance? Do you feel a need to feel superior to everyone? I am very fond of my Greco-Roman and Japanese history.

Directly relating to the Greco-Romans first they were also very warrior like people. Read this closely Xero: WARRIORS...ARE...MENTALLY...DISTURBED.

Please tell me how Homo-sexuality is not related to psychological problems in most instances. Bring a valid debate instead of trying to ostracize me for saying something you do not like. You are not always right Xero-Chan. Prove me wrong through an intelligent, fairly factual debate instead of trying to slander my character.

 

All those who've posted or will be posting in this thread (myself excluded of course) are either a homosexual or will become a homosexual in your natural life and/or have security issues of your own sexuality.
The truth hurts, not me~

 

[ QUOTE ]
Prove me wrong through an intelligent, fairly factual debate instead of trying to slander my character.

[/ QUOTE ]

um...no. See, you obviously missed the point. You wrote: "gays [were] almost non-existent a few hundred years ago". Zero's comment about Greco-Roman and Japanese culture was a response to that. Homosexuality predates the pathetic three hundred years you put forth. As does the bible.

Your "fondness" for the histories mentioned has no bearing on a sentence that is so profoundly ignorant.

GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me how Homo-sexuality is not related to psychological problems in most instances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the burden of proof actually falls to you. And repeating in captial letters, warriors are disturbed doesn't make your thesis valid or factual. Consider Oscar WIlde or Timothy Findley, Gay poet/authors. Not a warrior among the two and yet, unsuprisingly, they are still gay.

[ QUOTE ]
It is safe to speculate that psychologists have proven that gay people often have mitigating circumstances when they are in their childhood that screws them up psychologically. I am no therapist

[/ QUOTE ]

This is beyond funny. You believe it is safe to speculate that psychologists have proven something. From Websters: speculate: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence.

clap. clap. Well done.

You're right. You aren't a therapist. I'm willing to bet that there about a million things involving right thinking and education that you are not as well.

GE

 

Plato like wrestling a Wee to much.

Hah, even Plato was gay (or atleast it's strongly hinted in litterature I've read). Now here's something that nobody wants to hear:

The reason why homosexuals are hated amongst certain groups is cause mankind is deep down bisexual in nature and there for it must be oppressed just as much as some other forbidden feelings but this one in particular may not be allowed to even be thought about (unlike for example rape) due to society norms and standards and the fear of what it might lead to (but the thought of rape in general is actually much worse as it's an actual violation of someone against their will).

So why is it ok for guys to have double standards about homosexuality in general (loving lesbians)? Well, cause it doesn't oppose the idea of other socioculture norms pushed upon you: When two girls are togheter they are not seen as less feminine (as long as they look ok - otherwise they magically are) but two men are considered "less manly" on the other hand in general always (and it's a man dominated world with standards / ideals etc and your an idiot if you believe otherwise).

Of course it's easy to do broad generalizations based on psychology / sociology or even philosophy etc (some people really base hate not just against homosexuals in the bible but other groups in society aswell due to ignorance) but there isn't a child or now adult in life who hasn't gone thru critical periods of ones life where one hasn't thought of the most taboo (as for example incest due to the first rolemodel / ideal man or woman for a child is always the parent). Another problem would be that sexual thoughts are, for many, associated with lust and lust (indirectly) actually with violence. Guys penetrate - girls get penetrated. Psychoanalys theories say for example that many men have a lust to penetrate a woman violently, again and again, subconciously due to the feeling of rejection as they leave the womb as a newborn (or other more obvious events previous in ones life). On the other hand, if one would see homosexuality as something else, much purer, (that is actual love) I don't think anybody can not understand how two people can fall in love under circumstances that may not seem "ok" (just look historically) to society. So why not let them? Grasping for straws in the bible or whatever as a psychological defencemechanism to rationalize your fear of the unknown and taboo shouldn't really occur in the year 2004 more then witchburnings.

/KiwE

 

I am not the one that needs to look at the dictionary to rely on my grammar. I was using speculate in the intransitive form. Let's use the dictionary to prove you wrong. Speculate: To meditate on a subject. www.dictionary.com look it up, brother. Beyond funny? Beyond funny that you tried to make me look stupid when, in turn... It comes back onto you. There are intransitive and transitive forms of all verbs. I was using the intransitive. Perhaps I should mark whether my verbs are intransitive, or transitive for you? Maybe that would help?!

No I do not partake in a profession that relates to grammar, but it sure as hell is better than yours.



Alright GodEater. The burden of proof falls on me, how? There are exceptions to every rule in every way, shape or form. Two authors were known to be gay. Wow! Did I say no one was gay a few hundred years ago? No. I said it was fairly non-existent(atleast compared to now). You did not provide anything 'factual' in all reality, nothing is 'factual'. As for Warriors being mentally disturbed...How can I prove to you the facts of them being disturbed? You believe what you believe. It is said that most warriors are plagued with nightmares because they often feel as they are in purgatory.

And as for your little spiel about 'involving right thinking' are you God? What is 'right thinking'?. I guess you feel that you can judge what right thinking is, and isn't. Therefore, you have a biased opinion, and cannot carry on a valid debate as you state my thinking is not 'right thinking'. Nice mindless assumption there GodEater. I am sure you know me very well.

Get out of here with that crap, your post was a waste of both of our time.

 

I am going to stop posting on this topic. It is just one big argument. As soon as I try to debate something it dwindles down to personal insults that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Xero-Chan and GodEater you two were quick to make an attack on my character. Have at each other's throats. This thread wasn't made to just be personal conflict. I bow out.

 

My appologies. As of yet I haven't seen 8 miles, and it may have been wrong of me to assume that the way we use a slang here, is consistant in other regions.

Pe'ce,
Cuz

 

well now somebody got slapped down like a bitch and got all buggered up about it!

i applaud your choice to quit while you're behind - it's the smartest thing you've said and done in this thread.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Shang said:

All those who've posted or will be posting in this thread (myself excluded of course) are either a homosexual or will become a homosexual in your natural life and/or have security issues of your own sexuality.
The truth hurts, not me~

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Shang. What ever floats your boat.
Cuz

 

[ QUOTE ]
nothing is 'factual'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Next you'll likely assert that it is a fact that nothing is factual, which you pretty much are bound to do. After all, you say that ALL warriors are disturbed. Without objective reality that sentence can not be true. Debate is useless when one group sets out to show a real thing and the other paints pictures with their drool.

you condemn opinion but deny fact. You condemn personal attacks but began with an attack on Plague's writing, calling it a 'novel of garbage'. You say every warrior is mentally disturbed (a judgement) and yet when I lay the same charge against yourself I am biased and unable to engage in debate.

Everything you speak out against you exemplify and yet you decry contradiction.

Go away, little nightmare, light is upon you and you cannot stand up to it.

GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
No. I said it was fairly non-existent(atleast compared to now). You did not provide anything 'factual' in all reality, nothing is 'factual'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chances are there are equal numbers of gays or slightly less back in the day but non existent is not exactly the correct statement. The reason for ppl to either not admit or live openly gay is usually due to the same old b.s. that exist today. Which are Cutlural/Family obligations, Economic Status and Sexual norms. Today people are less restricted due to techology and economical freedom which enable individual to decided for themselves and feel less presure to stay reformed with what ppl in power want them to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
Get out of here with that crap, your post was a waste of both of our time.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually his crap was quite reasonable in trying to debate with you about the topic. And from your reponse you're the one who's not getting the point.

 

Ok, as a straight man who needs all the help he can get with the ladies, I think as many men as possible should marry each other.

However, I have yet to read the single statement that would end this whole thing....Marriage is not a Christian idea. Period. Almost every civilization on Mother Earth has had marriage (read: ritual bonding) in one shape or form and right many of them have had ABSOLUTELY no Christian influence. Even if marriage was invented by our 'God', and 'God' truly does find same-sex relationships an abomination, our government strictly forbids the punishment or lavishment of any kind based solely on the rejection or acceptance of any religious principles. If you don't want gay men and women to receive tax breaks and other benefits because they are 'evil' and threaten our community based on God's word, that's fine. However, all government-controlled incentives for hetero couples must be recalled as well. As we all know, this will never happen and is a shining example of how, in America, "What I believe is the truth and what you believe is shit."


(if this has been posted before I apologize)

 

He can't bow out yet! He hasn't made the obligatory Nazi-related insult!

 

[ QUOTE ]
pkg_inc said:

How can you say that homosexuality is wrong?
Haven't you read the rest of the thread?

Are you born "right", then? /versus/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif /versus/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I thinks it's clear as night and day. Men and woman are meant to be together. I cannot comprehend the psychology of those who see this differently. If other people cannot see this, then that's their opinion.

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:

[ QUOTE ]
Breaking a law is a crime. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

What law, exactly, are they breaking?

GE

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, the governor is defying state law.

 

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:


I thinks it's clear as night and day. Men and woman are meant to be together. I cannot comprehend the psychology of those who see this differently. If other people cannot see this, then that's their opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ideas of this country were supposely founded on gaving ppl regardless of their preference in life to have equal rights and freedom. With that said it includes things and ideas that are in conflicts with your own. Taking away ppls rights to join union is no different. Even though I don't agree with you on the topic but at least I respect why and accept it. But on the other hand you can't say the same though.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:
Breaking a law is a crime. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
I equate this law breaking to you driving 66 mph in the slow lane in a 65 mph zone when everyone else is going 74.

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:
The people granted these marriage licenses will soon be applying to get all the benefits granted to married couples.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for them. They deserve it.

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:
As much as I believe homosexuality is wrong, it starts to get personal when they want to collect my tax dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's difficult for me to believe that people are born wrong. I hope you change your mind about this. If someone picks out a genetic trait of yours they don't like, I hope you don't get harassed because of it.

Also, I'm sure homosexuals are tired of hetero married couples collecting their tax dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:
Although, there's an endless list of government spending practices I'm against, so chalk up another one for the national debt.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems a little bizarre to me. I'd think the hundreds of billions spent on trashing Iraq kinda stomps all over your worries about gay marriage cutting into your social security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our fundemental disagreement is that I don't believe people are born gay. I'm not gonna try to prove this otherwise because I can only speculate. I don't hate gays or anything and I have met very few of them in my life, and I'm sure that some of them are otherwise great people. If they want a certificate of union, fine, I just don't think they should get all the benefits.

And I agree, the government will never tell us why they wasted so much money blowing up Iraq.

 

[ QUOTE ]
kungfusmurf said:


The ideas of this country were supposely founded on gaving ppl regardless of their preference in life to have equal rights and freedom. With that said it includes things and ideas that are in conflicts with your own. Taking away ppls rights to join union is no different. Even though I don't agree with you on the topic but at least I respect why and accept it. But on the other hand you can't say the same though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say take away their right to join in union. I am against them recieving the full benefits (which are not "rights") of marriage.