8 Things Gay People Can't Do

[Myweponsg00d]

Why the hell would anyone think it is important to have both a mother and a father, when we are living in a time where women now work full time jobs and such?

 

Its not like women still stay around the house all day in their aprons and have the children hanging from them, while the man is gone for 10 hours of the day working in the steel mill, then comes home, smacks his wife on the arse and plops down on the couch.

 

Our society is basically eliminating gender roles so how the hell can it be important to have a parent of each sex? If we think it is important to have a "man" figure and a "woman" figure to look up to, we better tell the women to get back in the kitchen. Either give gays more rights, or take away women's rights. Otherwise the system is just contradictory...

[obfuscator]

Yes, the Kinsey scale, which many psychologists now even see as simplistic itself. The fact that we have bisexual people that have varying degrees of attraction to either sex should surely be a clue that it's not black and white.

 

Degrees of attraction are irrelevant. I may be "slightly" attracted to someone, but that's still attraction. This is the case heterosexually as well.

 

Well, here's one.... But as other people have pointed out, since autism affects ~0.1% of the population, and gay people 10% of the population it's no wonder that you haven't come across many.

 

You misunderstand my point. The example I gave (using autism) was as a serious mentally degenerative illness. If your degree of autism is mild enough you can write a blog that makes sense, you wouldn't qualify by the standards of this theory.

 

The whole point I'm trying to make referred to those so seriously disabled that they cannot be structured according to the laws of society.

 

No, my point was that it indicates that homosexuality isn't a human choice.

 

I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay.

 

"Nature is red in tooth and claw". Saying a human action is wrong because it goes against the "laws of nature" (which are what exactly?) isn't a good argument. And conversely we don't make moral judgements based on what we observe animals doing (the laws of nature?) because nature is selfish.

 

I'll admit that the "laws of nature" are very wide and open to interpretation. That's basically a very poor summary of my view on the issue.

[Spiffeh]

I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

 

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."

 

http://scienceray.com/biology/gay-animals-on-parade/

 

"The female monkeys, however, will form intense lesbian relationships that last for a few days to several months."

 

"Carlos and Fernando are the names of two male flamingos that are resident at the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust in the UK. They have been together for eight years and first came out, as it were, in 2001." "Notably, straight flamingos stay together for the mating season and then go their separate ways, choosing a new partner the year after. Carlos and Fernando are unique as their love has endured the passing of the years."

 

"These companionships are much more than just two buddies sharing a dorm, the older elephant will regularly initiate sex with the younger ones. When elephants engage in heterosexual mating the coupling is fleeting but the male buddies will often stay with each other for many years."

[Myweponsg00d]

 

I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay.

 

 

First of all, I doubt you are ever going to observe a wild animal humping something inanimate. Secondly, the "humping" that your dog does to random objects is not the same thing as animalian homosexual behavior. When they say that homosexuality has been observed in animals, they dont mean that a male gorilla just randomly went over to another male gorilla and humped him for 2 minutes and then ran off. Animals have homosexual relationships that are on par with their heterosexual ones. They caress them, care for them, and partner up with them. It isnt just a quick roll in the hay like some random hook up and then some stupid scientist says "OMG THEY ARE QUEER!!! YES!"

[Alg]

 

I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay.

 

 

First of all, I doubt you are ever going to observe a wild animal humping something inanimate. Secondly, the "humping" that your dog does to random objects is not the same thing as animalian homosexual behavior. When they say that homosexuality has been observed in animals, they dont mean that a male gorilla just randomly went over to another male gorilla and humped him for 2 minutes and then ran off. Animals have homosexual relationships that are on par with their heterosexual ones. They caress them, care for them, and partner up with them. It isnt just a quick roll in the hay like some random hook up and then some stupid scientist says "OMG THEY ARE QUEER!!! YES!"

From what I read homosexuality in animals strengthens the bond between the individuals in question, which for social animals in general would be a good thing.

Like for pairs of female birds (Of a species and I can't remember), after they lay eggs the pair of females bring up the young together.

[Romy]

Yguy, we already discussed this. You know there are gay animals that are not attracted to the opposite gender, I don't see why you even bothered to bring it up after the debate we had.

[Faux]

Though if I'm the kind of blinded by hate bigot, the last thing I want is gay-blood touching innocent children. It might turn them gay after all.

If you ignore that such a statement contradicts pretty much every source imaginable, including those of the bigots themselves.

 

wrong assumption, but that's nothing new with you is it?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

[The Dark Lord]

It's kind of similar to the whole "don't ask don't tell" thing. It doesn't make sense to restrict healthy people from fighting in a war if you need soldiers, and let's be honest, if these guys hate gay people that much they'd probably love to have them on the front lines or doing the absurdly dangerous jobs nobody else wants...

 

I think the Military just assumes that all gay men are effeminate and thus lack the 'balls' to go shoot somebody on a battlefield. I doubt that the majority of the folks in the military who don't want homosexuals in the armed forces hold this conviction because they personally want to deprive homosexuals the right of serving their country. I think it's more along the lines that they don't want any effeminate behavior in a field that is 'the man's job'. A lot of people in the military resent women being in the armed forces as well. The two are connected.

[Pirate_Felix]

Luckily this is not the case in every country.

[assassin_696]

Degrees of attraction are irrelevant. I may be "slightly" attracted to someone, but that's still attraction. This is the case heterosexually as well.

 

Sorry I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I mean you class yourself as bisexual but still be more straight than gay or gay than straight. Degrees of attraction are therefore highly relevant because it shows it's not a clear cut thing.

 

You misunderstand my point. The example I gave (using autism) was as a serious mentally degenerative illness. If your degree of autism is mild enough you can write a blog that makes sense, you wouldn't qualify by the standards of this theory.

 

The whole point I'm trying to make referred to those so seriously disabled that they cannot be structured according to the laws of society.

 

Okay I see what you're trying to say but I'm not going to prove or refute your theory for you. If you think that naturally socially [developmentally delayed]ed people are less likely to be gay, show me the evidence.

 

I fail to see how this proves it. My point is that animals at large hump everything - thus the fact they may from time to time happen to participate in homosexual behavior hardly proves animals are naturally gay.

 

Other people have refuted this. Animals at large certainly don't hump everything, some dogs occasionally do and some insects do because flowers imitate the shape of a female mate in order to transfer pollen to the confused male. Homosexual behaviour in animals isn't just animals being tricked by similar looking objects, it's entirely equivalent to human homosexual behaviour.

 

 

I'll admit that the "laws of nature" are very wide and open to interpretation. That's basically a very poor summary of my view on the issue.

 

I believe one of your opening lines was that you felt homosexuality was wrong because it was against the laws of nature. If you interpret the laws of nature as what you observe other species doing in nature then that statement is wrong because animals show homosexual behaviour. If you consider the laws of nature as to what fundamentally happens (genes trying to maximise their phenotypic advantage to maximise reproductive success) then I agree that exclusively homosexual behaviour seems "wrong" because that leads to zero reproductive gain for the individual. But then so is anyone who is infertile or sterile or chooses not to have children. We don't decide what's right and wrong based on the wishes of our genes because that would lead to social eugenics.

 

I think that's a fair summary because I don't see what else you can mean by saying it's "against the laws of nature" ?

[meb]

I think everything anti-gay is a load of [cabbage]. If people want to be gay, let them be!

 

Okay, let's say God dissapproves (that's what the catholic people say, right? People), people being gay is not right. God also has this divine plan and has everything worked out, into the smallest details. God also designed man. Now, if he would not approve of gay people, how is it possible they exist? Wouldn't God have prevented their coming out?

 

Yeah, I just can't stand anti-gay people.

A contradiction in the Bible :o I thought I'd never see the day.

 

Sacrasm aside, could someone please copy-paste the text? It won't open here.

[obfuscator]

Sorry I think you slightly misunderstood my point. I mean you class yourself as bisexual but still be more straight than gay or gay than straight. Degrees of attraction are therefore highly relevant because it shows it's not a clear cut thing.

 

Indeed, but at that point you've made a choice. If you're only "slightly" attracted to the same sex you may biologically qualify as a bisexual but you may decide to live life as a heterosexual, or vice versa.

 

 

Okay I see what you're trying to say but I'm not going to prove or refute your theory for you. If you think that naturally socially [developmentally delayed]ed people are less likely to be gay, show me the evidence.

 

I don't think they are less likely to be gay, I've just never seen one. I'm fully aware that this theory is terrible, there's no actual study to back it up. It was just an interesting thought that occurred to me.

 

Other people have refuted this. Animals at large certainly don't hump everything, some dogs occasionally do and some insects do because flowers imitate the shape of a female mate in order to transfer pollen to the confused male. Homosexual behaviour in animals isn't just animals being tricked by similar looking objects, it's entirely equivalent to human homosexual behaviour.

Yes, that's true, there are some cases of homosexual animals. However, (and I haven't looked into this) I'm willing to bet that the percentage of homosexual animals is significantly smaller than the percentage of homosexual humans.

 

I think the overall point I'm trying to make there is that homosexual attraction, for the most part, is built from nurture rather than nature. Of course there will be exceptions, there always are. But looking at the large majority it seems to be the case.

 

Another thing - right now I believe the statistic was that about 10% of the human population is gay? I'll use that as an example, even if it isn't smack on. Personally, I'd think that given the unaccpetance of homosexuals in many parts of the world a large number of homosexuals are still "in the closet" so that number could be as large as 20% ( just a figure off the top of my head).

 

There may be instances of homosexual behavior in other species, but I've never heard of a species that even comes close to a percentile that high. Seeing as animals don't follow the same social norms as humans as well, it would be pretty hard to argue that there are animals "in the closet" as well which would affect the percentile.

 

I believe one of your opening lines was that you felt homosexuality was wrong because it was against the laws of nature. If you interpret the laws of nature as what you observe other species doing in nature then that statement is wrong because animals show homosexual behaviour. If you consider the laws of nature as to what fundamentally happens (genes trying to maximise their phenotypic advantage to maximise reproductive success) then I agree that exclusively homosexual behaviour seems "wrong" because that leads to zero reproductive gain for the individual. But then so is anyone who is infertile or sterile or chooses not to have children. We don't decide what's right and wrong based on the wishes of our genes because that would lead to social eugenics.

 

I think that's a fair summary because I don't see what else you can mean by saying it's "against the laws of nature" ?

 

That was a quick summary of my overall feelings, which are long and complicated but it appears once again I'll have to explain them.

 

It's possible to commit any act - we have the freedom to do so. However, in order to be moral the act must have validity - a valid purpose.

The most basic and natural purpose of sex is reproduction - this I believe to be irrefutable. There are side effects, such as stress relief, bonding, fun, etc, but they are additions to the effect, not the immediate effect itself.

Thus, when the act is committed without allowing its basic and natural purpose to occur, it is rendered invalid.

 

I'll use an analogy I've used before: donating money to charity.

 

The purpose of donating money(or other goods) to charity is to make a sacrifice on your part for the betterment of others. This is the most basic purpose of the act. Therefore, If I donate my $1000 vacation fund to charity I am doing a good thing, as the basic purpose of charity is fulfilled.

If I rob a bank of $100000, and then donate to charity - I'm still helping a lot of people. However, since I am no longer donating myself, the basic purpose of the act is unfulfilled and the donation is invalid.

[Myweponsg00d]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

[svs]

Lol at the word "gay"

It's meaningless.

 

There shouldn't be made a distinction between being straight, bi or homo.

The world is struggling together and trying to work together to give women equal rights and don't get me started on racists and then they do something like this, people will always need one group of people that they can use as scapegoat, it's a known fact.

Making love to the same sex doesn't makes you any different than one who only makes love with the opposite sex.

 

You are only "gay" if you believe you are gay, what is gay?

You are only "stupid" if you believe you are stupid, what is stupid?

Catch my drift?

Who is here to judge this.

There's always an average but noone is the average, all is unique and equal.

 

You are not gay, gay people have less rights but that's not possible as one is equal with equal rights as his/her next one, therefore noone is gay.

 

Too bad thinking like this won't change much...yet.

 

 

Don't get me started on racists, i hate typing a wall of text that noone reads.

[obfuscator]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

[Myweponsg00d]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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?

[obfuscator]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

[Saru Inc]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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?

 

 

 

I know this is a corny saying, but I find it true:

 

 

The only hypocrites in the world are the ones who say they are not.

 

And to respond to Y guy's response to Assasin696:

 

 

Even if homosexuality was the cause of nurture of nature, why does that make it bad? And don't even think of comparing it to drug abuse or something.

 

But the fact stands: Everyone but some Christians/Muslims/random homophobic people know that not only is homosexuality not a choice, but infact is ingrained into the person. They can't simply change, and it's simply wrong. Morally wrong to say otherwise. And I don't think you realize how demeaning it is, or how offensive it is to this "GOD" you worship (It isn't the same one I worship at least... Don't know which Bible you're reading.) to say that homosexuality isn't natural.

[Myweponsg00d]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

[SeanyTheSailor]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

Just to kinda play devils advocate and be a douche, why is homosexuality ok then? If you just say because they love each other then i can say bestiality and pedophilia is fine and i think most people would disagree. (though i have met a few who think pedophilia is fine...)

[TTanT]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

Just to kinda play devils advocate and be a douche, why is homosexuality ok then? If you just say because they love each other then i can say bestiality and pedophilia is fine and i think most people would disagree. (though i have met a few who think pedophilia is fine...)

 

Wait, so can the cow express its love for a man? And the same goes for pedophilia, just to a lesser extent. Since teenagers like myself tend to be (even more so than adults) easily influenced and impulsive, should we really be getting married?

[SeanyTheSailor]

So I suppose you never pleasure yourself or have sex with contraception?

 

Or have oral?

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.

Just to kinda play devils advocate and be a douche, why is homosexuality ok then? If you just say because they love each other then i can say bestiality and pedophilia is fine and i think most people would disagree. (though i have met a few who think pedophilia is fine...)

 

Wait, so can the cow express its love for a man? And the same goes for pedophilia, just to a lesser extent. Since teenagers like myself tend to be (even more so than adults) easily influenced and impulsive, should we really be getting married?

Who's to say who can love who or is something or someone even can love? Who's to say love even exists? This is essentially what I recently just noticed people on the internet love to do, continually discredit your point, but they never really prove theirs, which seems to be the one useful thing I took out of English class this year.

[Roberthree]

Even though I think we both know homosexuality isn't a choice, for the sake of fun lets say it is. Religion is also a choice, but no one says Christians can't donate blood or join the army.

 

Honestly, the amount of blatant bigotry in this thread is astounding. I don't even know what to say. Comparing gays to pedophiles is just low. If you honestly think they're the same, you need to wake up.

[Myweponsg00d]

Just to kinda play devils advocate and be a douche, why is homosexuality ok then? If you just say because they love each other then i can say bestiality and pedophilia is fine and i think most people would disagree. (though i have met a few who think pedophilia is fine...)

 

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.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Even though I think we both know homosexuality isn't a choice, for the sake of fun lets say it is. Religion is also a choice, but no one says Christians can't donate blood or join the army.

Also still playing devil's advocate, and kinda seriously, how do we know its not a choice? I'm not gay so i don't know. The only people who would know are gays who could lie about it. So who is to say it isn't a choice?

 

Also why is it so ridiculous, they are both sexual attractions. i could compare heteros to pedophiles too as they are both sexual attractions. i don't think you can really argue that. But like I said who is anyone to judge what real love is and who can love who or what.

 

@Myweponsg00d

 

But then your argument really is the same as his, there is no reason.