Myweponsg00d

This is just nonsensical spun BS at some desperate attempt to switch up the situation on a crazy over-analytic level What you are saying is basically the same as saying "People in wheelchairs are making me ashamed of my legs cause they get to sit all day!" The wheelchair is designed to be an equalizer to bring people who can't walk onto the same level as people who can walk. The phrase "Proud to be _____" is a reinforcing phrase that is used to help bring minority cultures into the mainstream. Also to the other desperate grabber-of-straws "proud to be a bigot" wouldn't get you anywhere. "I'm not ashamed that I descriminate against people for no valid reason!" Wow good for you.

To be honest, I don't care if you have it in your sig. If there's something about yourself you're proud of, by all means, be proud of it. But yes, the general attitude held by the media and those preaching "political correctness" tend to shaft people just as much as they help people. I've already used the "proud to be straight" example, and the "Caucasian club" example, I'll throw out another one. Ever hear of masculinists? I doubt it. Technically, masculinists could argue for more rights for men, just as women do, yet they'd be called bigoted and old fashioned. Saru helped me see the answer to this question. We can see pride as the opposite of shame. So when someone says "Proud to be gay" they are basically saying "F-you society, I have no shame in being gay" When someone says "proud to be white" or "proud to be straight" or "proud to be a man" these people are saying "I have no shame in being white/straight/etc" People think you are an idiot when you say these things, for a good reason. Nobody tells whites they are inferior, theres no history of "white shame", straight people have no denial of rights...Theres no reason to tell society you aren't ashamed of being white.

You are missing the point. "Proud to be gay" does not just mean that someone picked a random thing about themselves to be proud of. The phrase is used by gay people to reinforce their self esteem, and let other people know that it is time to accept homosexuality. The same thing is true for "black clubs". It isn't just a group of people who happen to be black. It is a group of people who want to push an agenda of making sure that their minority culture is heard. They typically want to back up black issues in society. When you have a "poker club" it isnt just a gathering of people who like poker, the poker club PLAYS poker together. When you make an ethnicity club, your goals usually focus on awareness of your culture. White culture does not need to be spread, is not facing opression, and is not a minority.

"Where you live" doesnt change the fact that there is still a negative social stigma towards gays in a majority of the world. And again, you can't just look at the words and take the meaning from it. "Proud to be ___" doesn't just mean what the dictionary definition of those words are, thrown together. "Proud to be _____" is a way of people saying that they have a minority lifestyle (which is usually descriminated against) and they aren't letting idiots ruin their self esteem. If you want, I am sure saru would change his sig to "I am a gay person, and despite the adversity I face, I feel great about myself" but it is just much easier to take the format that has been used for years ("proud to be black, gay, deaf, paralyzed, etc").

This is completely ridiculous. People could have said the same thing about descrimination against blacks... It wouldn't be like that at all. Maybe if gays were seen as equal to straights, it would be the same thing. Saying you are proud to be gay is letting the world know that it is time for a change; that being gay doesnt make his life any worse than yours.

And what the hell is your point? If I had a religion that said when I turn 18 I should get a slave, would you say my religion isn't doing something hateful? And what are you on about "legislating respect"? Nobody is saying we need to make a law that says you can't have illogical opinions about people. Gays just want legal equality...

Incest does not cause mutations...When people have bad traits in their genes (like maybe high blood pressure) this will typically be a recessive trait. This means that, unless you happen to mate with a random person who also has the same rare bad gene, the trait has a low chance of being observed. When you mate with someone who has very similar genes (aka if you have the same parents or grandparents) these traits will have a higher chance of being observed in offspring. A lot of people have the misconception that incest will cause mutations because the genes are "too similar" or some nonsense. This is propaganda that gets spread by the same people who tell you that gays are mentally disabled. If we want incest to be illegal due to increased chance of inheriting bad traits, then we need to start screening every couple and looking at their DNA, forbidding them to mate if they have the same bad trait.

Really the most important thing is that your girl just feels like shes better than you.

If you want to develop your squat hardcore, try this. Take a weight that you can only do 10 reps with (so for you, looks to be about 155 lbs). Now once every month or two, instead of doing your normal squat routine, do a warm up and then do 20 squats with a weight that you usually only do 10 with. Not only will it develop your legs, but it will train your mind aswell. Around the 10th squat you should feel like you have given nearly everything you have. But just take it slow from there, breathe deep and heavy, and maintain focus. Obviously don't hurt yourself though (but you appear to be in decent shape so I think you could handle this). I have done this twice now and have puked both times, lol. But then when I return to my normal squat routine the next week, I can tell my legs feel much stronger.

Its like beer. The most advertised beers are Bud light, Miller light, etc. And the most ordered beers are Bud light, Miller light, etc... And these beers taste like crap! People just buy it because the companies are so huge that they can afford to get their names out more than all of their competition. Game franchises dont just want to produce the game that is going to be the most enjoyable to someone, they want to produce the most marketable game.

Derp. ? Most people who are legally deaf have some type of function in their ears. When you see someone who is using sign language, it is highly likely that they live in a world of total silence. People often think that "hard of hearing" is the term that you use to describe someone who has more than zero hearing ability. But "hard of hearing" is someone who has a pretty close to normal ability to hear. "Deaf" is the proper term to use for more than simply those who have absolutely zero hearing. The same is true for blind people. If you see someone walking down the street with a cane and sunglasses, this person would be considered blind, but it does not always (and does not usually) mean that they see nothing but black. Many of the blind I work with can put their face a few inches away from a sheet of paper and read size 24 bold font. Most can see lights and vague shapes of the world. I work with a few who are totally blind (but oddly enough, one of them "sees" people as large blobs of color...)

What you are saying is true, but my rebuttal is that a person must lose all of his/her natural hearing in order to get the implant. Your logic might apply to a person who has absolutely no natural ear activity, but most deaf have some degree of natural ear function. An implanted child will have two choices in his life: hear nothing or hear the electronic noise. Refraining from implanting your child will allow him to make his own decision and he will be able to choose his natural hearing ability (which would not be a choice if you implanted him as a child)

No, all you were saying is that education would sway the test. But its not about the magnitude of his score on one subject, its about the pattern his scores display across all subjects. And I would say that women, regardless of experience and education, will display a trend in their results on this test. That doesnt mean that each individual woman should be expected to produce the results, it just means that women, as a whole, will have a dominating trend in their results on this test. And I dont think every gay man is going to fall inside the "woman" profile. And I know a lot of straight men who have no mathematical skills, lots of language skills and would probably be a "woman" on that test. But theres no real reason for you to start refuting the legitimacy of this test they did. There are still trends, and these trends are important to the field of psychology. The "errors" you speak of are accounted for in the graphs. They don't just throw out data that doesnt support their hypothesis

You give no credit to psychologists by saying this. The test is designed to evaluate his brain's system of processing. Its not like they have a big list of right/wrong answers and 80% means man, 90% means woman. Psychological evaluation is more complicated than that. Its like you hearing of something that a particle physicist is working on and being like "Well what if the wind came and blew the electrons around?!?!?!" Just an unwarranted jab at the legitimacy of the study. Also even if it varied as simply as you are suggesting, why would that matter? "Men" would still be expected to do better than "women" on the spacial evaluation, regardless of their level of education. All they are concerned about is how his aptitude in certain areas compares to his aptitude in other areas. So how does education play a role in this? A test like a synonym test is directly related to knowledge of vocabulary, hence education. And what was the rest of the test? Mind reading? Psychic ability? Ability to run long distances? All of the criteria were intellectual evaluation and his absolute score would probably have something to do with education. It isnt about how high he scored on language aptitude, its about how high that score was in relation to other things. So how does education have anything to do with how good he is at one subject in relation to another?

You give no credit to psychologists by saying this. The test is designed to evaluate his brain's system of processing. Its not like they have a big list of right/wrong answers and 80% means man, 90% means woman. Psychological evaluation is more complicated than that. Its like you hearing of something that a particle physicist is working on and being like "Well what if the wind came and blew the electrons around?!?!?!" Just an unwarranted jab at the legitimacy of the study. Also even if it varied as simply as you are suggesting, why would that matter? "Men" would still be expected to do better than "women" on the spacial evaluation, regardless of their level of education. All they are concerned about is how his aptitude in certain areas compares to his aptitude in other areas. So how does education play a role in this?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people accept the government restrictions on newspapers, mail, TV, radio...etc..and then think that the internet should not be controlled by the government.

In terms of marriages, they are. They're related to hetrosexuals too. Stop thinking every single objection to homosexuality is negative and coming from bigots. You can choose to marry someone based on the fact that they are the same sex as you. You can't choose to marry someone based on the fact that they are a child. Marriage is an indefinite contract, and if you want to acknowledge pedophilia as a sexual preference or marriage preference, youd better figure out a way to keep people from aging. Unless you are saying "Well, if sex shouldnt come between a marriage of two people, why should age?" In which case we first of all need to stop using the term pedophilia, because the person is not attracted to the age but to the individual. A pedophile would exclusively perfer children. Secondly, the age barrier is not permanent and will not stop two people from getting married their whole lives, whereas you will not outgrow your gender... Gay marriage is being fought for so that the two people can just have the same legal benefits as straight people. Someone under 18 would not even benefit from such things.

This doesn't make any sense... Are you choosing not to be gay? I'm saying his point proves my point that you don't choose to be straight. And if being gay is a choice then i guess technically yes. So every time you look at another man you think "Am I going to choose to be turned on by his appearance?"

This doesn't make any sense... Are you choosing not to be gay? And 10,000 years ago people started to farm plants. Whats next, we breed humans and farm them? Therefore we shouldnt farm plants. No slippery slope is a valid argument.

I'm saying theres no reason to be against homosexuality, therefore people should be free to do what they want. I'm not saying that gayness is good or favorable and that heteros should consider going gay. Its just something that people should be able to decide for themselves. If I was trying to say that homosexuality is right for everybody then you might have a point. You were saying how the other guy had no reason for it to be banned except for his opinion. What I'm pointing out is that you're saying there is no reason for it not to be banned. So you pretty much have the same arguments, just used on either side of the argument. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. My opinion isnt that people should be gay. Its that gayness is a personal choice and we have no reason to stop it His opinion is that gayness is something that is wrong for the human race and there is no logical reason to feel that way. You see us as having two OPPOSITE views, but my view is not opposite to his. He is trying to say homosexuality is incorrect. I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY IT IS CORRECT. If I had an opposite opinion to his, I would be trying to prove that heterosexuality is wrong and homosexuality is what everyone should do. My argument is that there is no reason that someone elses homosexuality is a good or bad thing for the society, and therefore should be for them to decide.

I'm saying theres no reason to be against homosexuality, therefore people should be free to do what they want. I'm not saying that gayness is good or favorable and that heteros should consider going gay. Its just something that people should be able to decide for themselves. If I was trying to say that homosexuality is right for everybody then you might have a point.

Because the only difference between a heterosexual marriage and a gay marriage is that the consenting adults are of the same sex. The only thing that a man+woman can do that a man+man or woman+woman cannot do is reproduce. And theres plenty of man+woman couples who dont reproduce anyway. The argument I have to support homosexuality is that there is just absolutely no reason that it should be outlawed.

Lmfao wow. Thread solved. SO true. So completely true.

Well, the teaching of the catholic church (which is the one I've adhered to in this particular instance) says those things are wrong as well. However, I won't be as arrogant as to say I've never done those. So its okay for you to be a hypocrite and to adhere only to the guidelines that are convenient for you, but it isnt okay for someone else to bend the rules and just live a happy life instead of a repressed one? Let's just say I'm working on those things ;) I'm also not forcing this on anyone, as I've made clear multiple times through multiple topics. This is just my opinion. And its my opinion that the universe rotates around the earth. You cant just say whatever you want to and call it an opinion. An opinion is saying something like "Yellow is my favorite color". You have been presenting arguments to defend your views on homosexuality. This isn't just expressing an "opinion" anymore, you are trying to defend the logical legitamacy of your claim. If you want to hold an opinion like "homosexuality is wrong" then go ahead. If anyone asks you why, just stop and say "Basically there is no reason, its just my opinion" because if you show willingness to discuss the subject (like in this thread) you are giving people the false impression that this isnt just some belief you hold for no reason, and will continue to hold just because you believe in it.

Well, the teaching of the catholic church (which is the one I've adhered to in this particular instance) says those things are wrong as well. However, I won't be as arrogant as to say I've never done those. So its okay for you to be a hypocrite and to adhere only to the guidelines that are convenient for you, but it isnt okay for someone else to bend the rules and just live a happy life instead of a repressed one?