Wizz Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 What are you going on about? No one would choose to be hated by society... Even if you write it out once more it still won't be true. I'm still 100% confused... are you saying being gay IS a choice, or is NOT a choice? are you saying being straight IS a choice, or is NOT a choice? Makes one wonder... Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomy Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Its also alright to kll somebody because you have the 'killing people' gene, its not a choice people. I don't believe for a second that you can say 'its in your genes' to make Murder, or being gay right. Though I don't believe it as a bad thing (homos that is), I just don't agree with the 'in your genes' thing. Edit: Not a good example, but couldn't think of anything else, you get where I'm going, at any rate. Doomy edit: I like sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Its also alright to kll somebody because you have the 'killing people' gene, its not a choice people. I don't believe for a second that you can say 'its in your genes' to make Murder, or being gay right. Though I don't believe it as a bad thing (homos that is), I just don't agree with the 'in your genes' thing. Edit: Not a good example, but couldn't think of anything else, you get where I'm going, at any rate. If that were the case, then there would be nothing wrong with being genetically predisposed to killing people, but we can still say that the act of killing people is wrong (I think we can all agree that it is). Likewise, some people might concede that being gay isn't wrong because it's not a choice, but they might still say that homosexual sex is wrong (for whatever reason). All the "choice" debate does is to help determine whether it's right or wrong to actually be of the homosexual sexual orientation. I don't think many people would say being gay is wrong if it's about as controllable as skin colour. The "choice" debate is probably a means to help get homosexuals accepted as a valid cohort of society, like the civil rights movement was for blacks, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpent Eye Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 are you saying being straight IS a choice, or is NOT a choice? Makes one wonder... If you did a little back-reading, you'd know what my stance is... [hide=Page 79]To clarify my earlier comment: I wasn't implying that "homosexuality isn't an option." I was meaning to imply that it isn't a choice someone makes. It just... is. 0% of straight people wake up one day and say, "I think I'll like the opposite sex today." It's no different for gay people. Sorry for any confusion![/hide] I clearly don't think being straight is something someone can choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 As me being a Catholic Christian I have to say it is wrong, marrige should be between male and female, but if gayness :lol: is genetic I would maybe agree that it may be the only choice.. But :wall: You know on the threads about the economy? If I say, "Being a socialist I'm too bigoted to accept any form of capitalism", would that be OK? I just wanna run it by people who use religion as an excuse to their own homophobia, that's all. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomy Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 As me being a Catholic Christian I have to say it is wrong, marrige should be between male and female, but if gayness :lol: is genetic I would maybe agree that it may be the only choice.. But :wall: This is why I cannot understand religion, the way you typed that implied to me that if you wern't christian you'd believe it to be alright. I mean surely you should have your own beliefs as well, not just believe in something written 2000 years ago because you're told to? Doomy edit: I like sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong. But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right. I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool. Until further mutations occur elsewhere. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjula Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong. But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right. I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool. Until further mutations occur elsewhere. Aaaargh for gods sake we are not a biological aberation, did you really not consider how insulting that would sound? There is no evidence at all that it is any form of abberation, there are no biological prices to pay for being gay with the possible exception of slightly greater increased risk of passing infection during sez, but that risk is present in hetero behaviour, thats just the nature of sex. There is far more evidence that it is an evolved trait to increase the number of care givers without dependants in a social group (Much like male frogs changing sex when there arent enough females in a group). Its a functional behaviour pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwordKing Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 That's my point. I'm hoping if I put it like that he would get it. Glad we agree. And don't worry, he won't win this arguement. :roll: You can't win an arguement, no one can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purfishx Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 It's gotta be one way or the other, dude. Bisexuals say hi. I think that's what you meant. I dunno. "Reading the context" says hi. :thumbdown: I was talking about the choice of being homosexual. I think bisexuals still enter the equation. Sigs by: Soa | Gold_Tiger10 | Harrinator1 | Guthix121 | robo | Elmo | Thru | Yaff2 Avatars by: Lit0ua | Unoalexi | Gold Tiger . Hello friend, Senajitkaushik was epic, Good luck bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpent Eye Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I think bisexuals still enter the equation. Bisexuality most certainly enters the equation. It's just a sad fact that when the word "gay" is said, most people just assume it's a relationship between two men. That's why there has been little-to-no discussion in this topic about lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eias Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 That's why there has been little-to-no discussion in this topic about lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals. Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpent Eye Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Maybe you'll get a dictionary for Christmas this year! :twss: Edit: Sarcasm aside... *cough* What I mean to say is that the labels "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" all fall under the category of homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purfishx Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Erm, aren't lesbians homosexual? :uhh: Sigs by: Soa | Gold_Tiger10 | Harrinator1 | Guthix121 | robo | Elmo | Thru | Yaff2 Avatars by: Lit0ua | Unoalexi | Gold Tiger . Hello friend, Senajitkaushik was epic, Good luck bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieMcD Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 That's why there has been little-to-no discussion in this topic about lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals. Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Are you........serious? Type dictionary into Google, enter the word homosexuality and see what comes up =D> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eias Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 That's why there has been little-to-no discussion in this topic about lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals. Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Are you........serious? Type dictionary into Google, enter the word homosexuality and see what comes up =D> I do know what you mean,but people here refer to homosexuality as being Gay,or a male sexually attracted to other male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purfishx Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I do know what you mean,but people here refer to homosexuality as being Gay,or a male sexually attracted to other male. No, thats what you refer to homosexuality as. I refer to homosexuality as someone attracted to their same sex. Sigs by: Soa | Gold_Tiger10 | Harrinator1 | Guthix121 | robo | Elmo | Thru | Yaff2 Avatars by: Lit0ua | Unoalexi | Gold Tiger . Hello friend, Senajitkaushik was epic, Good luck bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpent Eye Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I do know what you mean,but people here refer to homosexuality as being Gay,or a male sexually attracted to other male. No... I think you'll find that people here refer to males attracted to other males as gay, not homosexual. The term homosexual isn't applied to men only. And in fact, even the term "gay" shouldn't be applied to men only. Only the term "lesbian" is gender-specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin0001 Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 That's why there has been little-to-no discussion in this topic about lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals. Well,it's because this topic is about whether it's right to be a Homosexual or it's wrong,so i'm sure being a Bi,or lesbian has nothing to do with it. Being gay = men with men Being Lesbian = woman with woman So what does being lesbian fall in under then? And why do they get there own special class when there the same as people being gay (well there is a difference gay is men lesbian is women but you know what I mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpent Eye Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Being gay = men with men Being Lesbian = woman with woman So what does being lesbian fall in under then? And why do they get there own special class when there the same as people being gay (well there is a difference gay is men lesbian is women but you know what I mean) The term "gay," as I said in my post above, actually applies to both male and females. However, it's generally applied to males only. But by definition, a gay person isn't strictly male. The term "lesbian" really just gained popularity only to seperate male homosexuals from female homosexuals. Just... uh... fyi... don't mean to be picky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin0001 Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Sorry I didn't see your post I had mine in draft for a bit (multitasking). But I never new gay was for women as well I only heard it loosely in terms of women. (I guess you do learn something new every day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Sorry I didn't see your post I had mine in draft for a bit (multitasking). But I never new gay was for women as well I only heard it loosely in terms of women. (I guess you do learn something new every day) It's a gender neutral word (and up until the 50-60's, had nothing to do with sexual orientation), it's used for both genders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinjula Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I also use 'gay' to mean either gender, the same as 'homosexual', lesbian is specifically for women, in a pinch ill quite happily use 'puff' to refer to male homosexuals, but to me gay is both sexes, i think i infer that cos whenever i go to gay pride there are lesbians there, hence gay is inclusive of lesbians. but really its just semantics and as long as we are all on the same page it doesnt matter, just be aware that those around you may not be using the same word to mean the same thing and that it doesnt matter if you misunderstand someone because they are using a word differently to you, and if it turns out you actually agree when the semantic difference is revealed, then so much the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong. But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right. I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool. Until further mutations occur elsewhere. Aaaargh for gods sake we are not a biological aberation, did you really not consider how insulting that would sound? There is no evidence at all that it is any form of abberation, there are no biological prices to pay for being gay with the possible exception of slightly greater increased risk of passing infection during sez, but that risk is present in hetero behaviour, thats just the nature of sex. There is far more evidence that it is an evolved trait to increase the number of care givers without dependants in a social group (Much like male frogs changing sex when there arent enough females in a group). Its a functional behaviour pattern. Sorry, that phrasing wasn't meant to insult. But surely you can't deny that homosexuality is not normal? It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it definitely isn't normal. If it was, than our population would have dwindled to nothing a long time ago. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nenga Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong. But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right. I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool. Until further mutations occur elsewhere. Aaaargh for gods sake we are not a biological aberation, did you really not consider how insulting that would sound? There is no evidence at all that it is any form of abberation, there are no biological prices to pay for being gay with the possible exception of slightly greater increased risk of passing infection during sez, but that risk is present in hetero behaviour, thats just the nature of sex. There is far more evidence that it is an evolved trait to increase the number of care givers without dependants in a social group (Much like male frogs changing sex when there arent enough females in a group). Its a functional behaviour pattern. Sorry, that phrasing wasn't meant to insult. But surely you can't deny that homosexuality is not normal? It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it definitely isn't normal. If it was, than our population would have dwindled to nothing a long time ago.That just seems like a kind of insulting statement. Like has been said, many people believe it is perfectly natural. There just happen to be a lot more heterosexual people. There happen to be a lot more white people in the U.S.A., would you say being black is not normal? What about being jewish? Ponies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now