At 3/2/05 01:08 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Uhhh, I hate to point this out (actually in all honesty, I love it) but you are rather hypocritical in your speech here.

I guess I invited that one.

Take a note of your own words... here we go....

Being a man of science, this does not indicate that the problem is genetic or a disease. This indicates that the brain while in it's development may have missed a stage or phase where the hormones of the fetus create a strictly male or female organism.

My point when I said its genetic/a disease and importantly whatever was that I was pointing out that just because it was not their fault they were gay did not make it justifiable.

(go back to your notes) Serial killers have nothing to do with gays... and we do not simply let prisoners go that seem to have a double Y chromosome... if they do, I would like to know where you got this information. This simply provides a theory as to why serial killers are killers.

This example was used to illustrate the point that when something is not your fault it does not automatically aquit you. Comparing serial killers to gays is harsh I know, but im not here to sugar coat what I say. Certainly I dont propose there should be any punishment for being gay.

(go back to your notes) Because you do not feel comfortable with gays does this give you a valid reason for society to dislike them. (remember your speech about how people shouldn't hate because of ignorance.... people shouldn't hate because of what makes them feel 'comfortable')

Hmm I dont believe I phrashed it as I feel uncomfortable, I went straight in for dislike, you decided this was because I feel uncomfortable. Could it not be that these are characteristics I simply do not like? because they are different well maybe, but there are many qualities in me I dont like to see in other people, and often myself.

(go back to your notes... AGAIN) Just because it disgusts you is not their fault. You may be disgusted with the way I eat a muffin (eat the bottom, then the top)... this does not mean it should be illegal or banned.

'It should be illegal or banned'; I dont remember proposing any punishment for being gay, as I said a moment ago. I find paeodophilia disgusting, but perhaps I should be more accepting of other cultures? (for there have been paedophilic cultures have they not).

Oh and heres another thing I dont like, and I level this criticism at many groups of society. They are so fucking loud, gays wantthis gays want that, animal rights protesters want this want that, muslims want this want that, fuck me moan moan moan moan. You want to be treated like everyone else? then shutup and act like everyone else, you are seperating yourselves by starting these gays for whatever groups.

(NOTES!!!!) Groups that get along with the majority of society are also very loud and bitchy, if you hadn't noticed. Perhaps you didn't notice because you feel more comfortable with people who think like you. God forbid we have individuals in a society. "What, they are different in some way from me????... NOOOOO I can't allow it!!!!!!!!!!!!"

My point is I dont get on a podium and go im straight/english/white/(and any other distinguishing factor you wish to insert) etc and I hate this, I like that, I just say I like this I like that, whereas someone from a minority points out he/she is different and then says I like this.

(*sigh*... notes... I'm getting sick of this now) Sexism is a problem in this country. If you start to deliver laws that are only applicable to one gender, then you are putting a further stress on gender inequality. And yes my son, you are a hypocrite if you say that it is perfectly normal (or acceptable) for women to love each other and not men. Believe it or not, there are straight people who enjoy watching straight men get off as well... although these are more of straight women who enjoy it than straight men.

And do you know what im getting sick of? the fact that I worded my views respectfully (with one little joke in the form of, as far away as possible) yet I find myself being insulted by you. One of the first points I made was how in an argument the opposition will try and degrade the view of his other half by trying to make him look stupid, yet you go right ahead with the (*sigh*... notes... I'm getting sick of this now)(+ the rampant sarcasm in the other paragraph), over and over again. I do remember saying I treat gay people I meet with resect, and that is true, despite the fact I disagree with their inclination (as I put it), yet you fail to show respect to someone with a different view. I wonder which is worse, showing no respect to someone with a different sexual preference (of the same sex), or showing none to someone with a different view; certainly the latter would isolate you more. Im guilty of neither.

I have see women who are not lesbians hug and kiss on many occasions, no I dont mean on the cheek. I have never seen a straight man repeat this act (the kissing one). Of course men hug too, especially when we're drunk, but not with the same frequency or intimacy women do. I do not advocate laws that apply only to one gender but the way society treats a gender socially is always going to be different. When I talk of society showing more respect to women I mean entirely in a social aspect (as they dont enjoy any greater rights and historically endured lesser rights). But perhaps im wrong, but for me, I treat women differently to men, i joke with men more distastefully and worry less about them in general, whereas I am politer and show more empathy when with women (even with those I have no interest in, before you say its simply because I am after something).

Well I certainly hope you do. Yes, we have a lot of things in this world that we wish didn't exist (such as rape and murder) but unfortunately they are a reality. However, things like rape and murder involve negativity, while homosexuality is about the love between two consenting adults, so I wouldn't put them in the same category (just realizing my own error on how I compared murder and homosexuality).

Yes but I wish love was solely an act between men and women, or at least the love we are speaking of. Comparing any argument to something infinitely worse, or infinitely trivial is something we all do when making points.

Sadly, Gutmunchr highlighted my point about judgement before familiarity.

night_watch_man18...thanks for your support. I'm glad we share views. It makes me feel better knowing there are people out there who are commited to equality, and not discrimination.

Don't give up equality - keep supporting it. :-)

At 3/2/05 03:42 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: And do you know what im getting sick of? the fact that I worded my views respectfully (with one little joke in the form of, as far away as possible) yet I find myself being insulted by you.

Before you get a chance to start ripping on me because I gave you shit, let me just say that you did not "[word your] views respectfully " To quote you...

; They are so fucking loud, gays wantthis gays want that, animal rights protesters want this want that, muslims want this want that, fuck me moan moan moan moan

I dislike the way they pleasure themselves, simply put its disgusting (its a one way system). You dont know where you stand with a gay man (though as far away as possible is generally good).

*note* the "joke" was probably the least offensive of those statements

its a wish that it simply did not exist in the first place.

As true as it may be in your mind, it really goes against your "I'm not the bad guy" image you think you have.

At 3/2/05 10:13 AM, Gutmunchr wrote: ... There is nothing worse than seeing a man (a so-called man), with a poncy walk, a high-pitched (over exaggerated) voice, bitchy-ness and when they make girly shrieky noises...

Well next time bitch,
I won't let you suck on my dick.

*extra eye rollie*
and then some...

At 3/2/05 01:24 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Ignorant =/= uneducated It simply means that they don't know about a certain issue. For example someone with a PhD in physics isn't automatically an expert on world economics. Well you could say the same things goes for homosexuality.

There is no degree/qualification that makes any person more or less qualified to argue on this subject, therefore I was attempting to stop people discarding my views with the words ignorant or stupid.

Easy, killers KILL other people, gay people don't. Unless you can come up with some viable reasoning on why they are detrimental to the greater society the claim is unsubstantiated.

I dont think they are detrimental to society at all, but my views are not drawn on whether it is for the greater good of country/culture. Testing on animals is good for our culture as it helps provide medicines and cosmetics (a valuable resource undoubtably, look at the money spent on it), yet many people thik it is wrong. But perhaps they should open their eyes a little wider and think about society? Prison also has a very poor record in terms of helping our society, perhaps we should have rehab programs or maybe we should make prosoners do forced labour? that would be good for society! whether something is good for society is not the be all or end of whether something is right or wrong.

So they are different, that is a poor justification of anything.

And you dislike nothing that is different? I have made my point on this one to the other person.

Thats your opinion, not scientific fact. I know a couple of gay guys, they hit on me once or twice, I told them I was strait and that was it. Not exactly a traumatizing experience.

There is a scientific way for testing if something is disgusting is there? And I thought this was all about opinions how sorry I am for putting mine forward.

Yes damn them for protesting against the injustices they are recieving. They should just shut the fuck up and let the people that don't care about them run their lives.

A response on the other reply.

LMAO, no that does make you a hypocrite. You don't like gay guys because "thats disgusting" yet if you saw two chicks making out you would probably like it. Also your notion that "Women recieve more respect than men" is grossly flawed. I'd go into it, but I have a post limit.

Feel free to carry on in another post, but read my other reply, you and the nightwatchman share points roughly, I would also ask you read the paragraph where I ask for a little more respect.

So you hate them but you tolerate them. Ok my question would be do you support the various acts to ban gay marriage? Because you can't tolerate and discriminate against a group at the same time.

Hmm, im not sure there is nothing I can do about there being gay, but I dont want to give them another platform where I can watch them do their stuff, so I suspect I would vote against their recieving the right to marry. I can show them respect when I am with them, and not raise the issue of their being gay. If any gay person was to ask me my opinions I would let him know how I felt. But you have changed my word respect to tolerate, and so you are right. I think you will find many enemies in this world have shown each other respect despite their wishes to kill each other (no I dont want to kill gays).

Food for thought the greeks only penetrated slaves (and not the other way round).

1. It wasn't just slaves were involved with the homosexual activity but apprentices as well. 2. I would like to hear where you got the "one way" info because what I've seen suggests differently.

Yes between the legs, not inside, one way refers to your backside by the way.

Haven't bothered to proof read, may be some dodgy English.

At 3/2/05 03:42 PM, Gutmunchr wrote:

My point when I said its genetic/a disease and importantly whatever was that I was pointing out that just because it was not their fault they were gay did not make it justifiable.

And why is homosexuality harmeful?
You've compared homosexuality the extra chromosome thingie in serial killers, but where's the basis of your argument?

Just let me put them into perspective--
One them are gay. The other are killers.

It's like comparing the deadliness of a car accident and a nuclear power plant, and then saying that car accidents are the deadliest things on earth.

Sure they may share some attributes in most respect, but to deduce the argument to make car accidents equal to nuclear power plant accident is fallacious, just like comparing homosexuality to serail killers.

Hitler was straight. Albert Fish was straight. Charlie Manson, Satan, and Skeletor were straight just like Saddam and his sons were straight.

Now should I say that straight people are crazy evil mutthafukkas?
I could, but I wouldn't want to make a stupid argument.

At 3/2/05 04:08 PM, fli wrote: Hitler was straight.

Somehow, enjoying to be urinated by your niece doesn't ring the 'straight' bell for me. But that's just my opinion.

At 3/2/05 03:59 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Before you get a chance to start ripping on me because I gave you shit, let me just say that you did not "[word your] views respectfully " To quote you...

; They are so fucking loud, gays wantthis gays want that, animal rights protesters want this want that, muslims want this want that, fuck me moan moan moan moan

Damn, thats a very incriminating rant ;-(, forgot about that one, oh well overall I felt I kept my head on pretty well.

I dislike the way they pleasure themselves, simply put its disgusting (its a one way system). You dont know where you stand with a gay man (though as far away as possible is generally good).

*note* the "joke" was probably the least offensive of those statements

its a wish that it simply did not exist in the first place.

As true as it may be in your mind, it really goes against your "I'm not the bad guy" image you think you have.

Hmm i dont think the last one is that bad (nor the second really), perhaps if I say I wish all the men that are gay were born straight it would be easier for you to digest. All im saying is im not about to go off the wall and start swearing, ranting, using caps, saying they should be drowned at birth, etc etc so dont go for my neck like I am and show me some common courtesy. I want to keep this as a discussion rather than a flaming because I wont get drawn into one, and I have shown the nightwatchman no disrespect so there is no need for him to show me any.

Comparing any argument to something infinitely worse, or infinitely trivial is something we all do when making points.

Perhaps Fli you could take the meaning from what I am saying rather than going, you are comparing homosexuals to serial killers. These are simple illustrations, dont get to caught up in the example, just take the meaning from it and then counter that.

My argument on the chromosome thing was actually a counter on the argument of its not their fault so therefore it cannot be wrong.

Your argument that points to all the evil people of the world being straight, I never pointed to an evil gay man and say look at him! he is a pefect example of a gay person. So why are you acting as if I have?

As a parting though, I dont hate gay people, or even dislike the ones I meet personally but I do dislike what they are. What does that mean? Well I often say I hate France, and Germany, and especially Argentina. However if I have met Frenchmen, I like them, but like gays I dont like what they are, even if I do like who they are. The homos probably rank above with France and Germany, not with Argentina though; I thought it was funny when their economy crashed a few years ago and loved it when we beat them a few years ago aswell (not long after their crash - nothing beats rubbing alt in the wounds, because you know how much it mattered to them)(oh in the football, not a few years ago as in back to the falklands).

At 3/2/05 04:04 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: There is no degree/qualification that makes any person more or less qualified to argue on this subject, therefore I was attempting to stop people discarding my views with the words ignorant or stupid.

Actually I would say there are qualifications in arguing on something like this, given they arn't very extensive. Basically if you make judgements beyond "eww thats gross" and actually know a gay person then I think you have some right to debate it. Unfortunately people on both sides will blindly take a side "just because" and fight bitterly about it despite not having a clue.

I dont think they are detrimental to society at all,

O.O I didn't think anyone against gay marriage would admit that. Thank you for proving me wrong and thus supporting the gay marriage movement.

but my views are not drawn on whether it is for the greater good of country/culture. Testing on animals is good for our culture as it helps provide medicines and cosmetics (a valuable resource undoubtably, look at the money spent on it), yet many people thik it is wrong. But perhaps they should open their eyes a little wider and think about society? Prison also has a very poor record in terms of helping our society, perhaps we should have rehab programs or maybe we should make prosoners do forced labour? that would be good for society! whether something is good for society is not the be all or end of whether something is right or wrong.

It isn't the end all be all, but it is a useful dynamic. Especially once you consider that many people that are against gay marriage claim it will "detrimental to society." These people are usually also those that believe that homosexuality is detrimental to the world.

So they are different, that is a poor justification of anything.

And you dislike nothing that is different? I have made my point on this one to the other person.

I don't dislike anything based on the fact that it is different. In fact, I really don't see a single group of people I can step back and say "I don't like them" with the exception of bigots, racists, etc.

There is a scientific way for testing if something is disgusting is there? And I thought this was all about opinions how sorry I am for putting mine forward.

That's basically how things work in the political forum and well... life. If you have an opinion on a "political issue" it's under scrutany. So I questioned your opinion just as you can question mine.

A response on the other reply.

you mean this?

My point is I dont get on a podium and go im straight/english/white/(and any other distinguishing factor you wish to insert) etc and I hate this, I like that, I just say I like this I like that, whereas someone from a minority points out he/she is different and then says I like this.

Well there is a simple reason for this. Unlike you they aren't just defending an issue, they are defending an essential part of themselves. If someone was attacking you because you are a white male, you would defend yourself as just that... a white male. It is a way of establishing and protecting their identity.

Feel free to carry on in another post, but read my other reply, you and the nightwatchman share points roughly, I would also ask you read the paragraph where I ask for a little more respect.

Yup, read it all. I even already responded to that already. What you basically said on the issue at hand is that it is more socially acceptable for women to be physical with each other. That hardly transfers into "Its part of our society to treat women with more respect than men."

Hmm, im not sure there is nothing I can do about there being gay, but I dont want to give them another platform where I can watch them do their stuff, so I suspect I would vote against their recieving the right to marry. I can show them respect when I am with them, and not raise the issue of their being gay. If any gay person was to ask me my opinions I would let him know how I felt. But you have changed my word respect to tolerate, and so you are right. I think you will find many enemies in this world have shown each other respect despite their wishes to kill each other (no I dont want to kill gays).

Ok... I don't understand how you can dislike something so strongly yet be perfectly civil to it. It's better than some of the other people I guess. Oh well, I can't make you change your mind.

1. It wasn't just slaves were involved with the homosexual activity but apprentices as well. 2. I would like to hear where you got the "one way" info because what I've seen suggests differently.

Yes between the legs, not inside, one way refers to your backside by the way.

Haven't bothered to proof read, may be some dodgy English.

I took what you said to mean that greek men were penetrating their slaves without any kind of reciprocation, which I'm pretty sure wasn't necisarrily the case.

At 3/2/05 03:42 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: I guess I invited that one.

Well when you give hypocritical statements, you do genuinely invite people to say that you are making hypocritical statements.

My point when I said its genetic/a disease and importantly whatever was that I was pointing out that just because it was not their fault they were gay did not make it justifiable.

Your biology tells you that you are a straight man. Does it then seem justified that you act out as a heterosexual? If so, how does it not justify the acts of a gay man simply doing what his biology is telling him to do?

This example was used to illustrate the point that when something is not your fault it does not automatically aquit you. Comparing serial killers to gays is harsh I know, but im not here to sugar coat what I say. Certainly I dont propose there should be any punishment for being gay.

So then why are you contributing to this thread at all if you aren't making a proposal, other than to state reasons that have already been said?

Hmm I dont believe I phrashed it as I feel uncomfortable, I went straight in for dislike, you decided this was because I feel uncomfortable. Could it not be that these are characteristics I simply do not like? because they are different well maybe, but there are many qualities in me I dont like to see in other people, and often myself.

So what does this prove? (is it just me or is this guy not making a whole hell of a lot of sense? Maybe I'm just dense) Ok, so you dislike them or their characteristics... so?

'It should be illegal or banned'; I dont remember proposing any punishment for being gay, as I said a moment ago. I find paeodophilia disgusting, but perhaps I should be more accepting of other cultures? (for there have been paedophilic cultures have they not).

Then what ARE you proposing (if anything)? As for what you are saying about pedophiliacs, this is a situation of rape. Rape and Love are two different things, so you do not have to accept a pedophiliac. Also... what do you mean "for there have been pedophiliac cultures"? You mean there have been cultures where pedophilia was encouraged or legal? Yes, it was also encouraged or legal to kill a black man because he was black in our past, what does this have to do with the present?

My point is I dont get on a podium and go im straight/english/white/(and any other distinguishing factor you wish to insert) etc and I hate this, I like that, I just say I like this I like that, whereas someone from a minority points out he/she is different and then says I like this.

If I'm reading this right, then I would have to say that this gives the speaker credibility on the issue. By saying that they are part of the minority that is experiencing discrimination, it shows that they have merit in their words because they have personally experienced the discrimination themselves.

And do you know what im getting sick of? the fact that I worded my views respectfully (with one little joke in the form of, as far away as possible) yet I find myself being insulted by you.

What's the difference between me saying that you are a hypocrite and you telling your joke about "as far away as possible"? Difference: People in general can be offended by your words that have no justification. My words are directed solely at you based on what you have said. Difference: My judgement is based on the character that you have displayed. Your judgement is based on a group through generalizations. Whether you intended it to be a joke or not, you have to realize that just because it was a joke, that doesn't strip it of responsibility if people are offended by it.

:One of the first points I made was how in an argument the opposition will try and degrade the view of his other half by trying to make him look stupid, yet you go right ahead with the (*sigh*... notes... I'm getting sick of this now)(+ the rampant sarcasm in the other paragraph), over and over again. I do remember saying I treat gay people I meet with resect, and that is true, despite the fact I disagree with their inclination (as I put it), yet you fail to show respect to someone with a different view. I wonder which is worse, showing no respect to someone with a different sexual preference (of the same sex), or showing none to someone with a different view; certainly the latter would isolate you more. Im guilty of neither.

YOU were the one who said that you may be a hypocrite in your words... I only showed you where this assumption could be true. Notice how I never called you names like biggot, sexist, etc etc, because I do not know you personally, so I have no right to give you these labels. In your own arguements, you were contradicting yourself, so I DO have sufficient evidence to call you on it.

I have see women who are not lesbians hug and kiss on many occasions, no I dont mean on the cheek. I have never seen a straight man repeat this act (the kissing one).

I have seen both straight men and straight women kiss each other... just because you haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

But perhaps im wrong, but for me, I treat women differently to men, i joke with men more distastefully and worry less about them in general, whereas I am politer and show more empathy when with women (even with those I have no interest in, before you say its simply because I am after something).

And I treat men and women differently depending on the character of the individual. Of course, men and women ARE different in some respects, but that doesn't mean that we should say it is socially acceptable for women to love each other and not men. (yes, you did not say this directly... or maybe you did... either way, this is the message you are sending).

Yes but I wish love was solely an act between men and women, or at least the love we are speaking of. Comparing any argument to something infinitely worse, or infinitely trivial is something we all do when making points.

What do you care if there are heterosexuals and homosexuals alike out there? Saying that you "wish love was solely an act between men and women" does nothing to make it happen... so why even bring it up when we are talking about how gays should be treated equally to straights? Honestly, you should look at WHY you dislike gays so much, I mean some founded reasons WHY, and base your arguments on these aspects as well, not just on "how you feel".

At 3/2/05 04:35 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: I often say I hate France, and Germany, and especially Argentina.

Oh, come on, easy on the Argies. True, everyone else hates them, and there's a special brand of jokes about Argentinians, but they're not that bad.

At 3/2/05 03:52 PM, kangarooka wrote: Sadly, Gutmunchr highlighted my point about judgement before familiarity.

night_watch_man18...thanks for your support. I'm glad we share views. It makes me feel better knowing there are people out there who are commited to equality, and not discrimination.

Don't give up equality - keep supporting it. :-)

Yes, he certainly did... and right after my post about "how I hope it will change someone's mind too"... lol oh the irony.

I have always dedicated my life to justice and equality, and there are others out there like us who share our views for a better society where people drop their hateful pre-conceived notions and know the person before passing judgement.

Hah, I would never dream on giving up. =D

At 3/2/05 04:13 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 3/2/05 04:08 PM, fli wrote: Hitler was straight.

Somehow, enjoying to be urinated by your niece doesn't ring the 'straight' bell for me. But that's just my opinion.

What? How does an incestual act mean that Hitler wasn't straight? Incest and Homosexuality are two different things man.

At 3/2/05 04:35 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: However if I have met Frenchmen, I like them, but like gays I dont like what they are, even if I do like who they are. The homos probably rank above with France and Germany, not with Argentina though...

Well, as long as you have your "ranking of hatred" organized through pure discrimination, I can sleep a bit easier tonight.

(????)

My my my,

An interesting thread on Newgrounds BBS, who'd a thunk it. As with a couple of other folks, there's no way in hell i'm sifting through all 10 pages of this.

Just to go back to the original question though;

DavSngSorrow, dude, my heart goes out to you. The question as asked says a lot about where you're at. I imagine somebody gave you some shit at some point, or you spent a half an hour watching insecure 13 year olds vent their fear into flash in the portal.

Lemme try to answer your question 2 times;

Why do people hate gay people?

Well, they don't. It all depends on who you hang out with.

Where i live there is a huge mix of gay, straight, bi, lezbos, trannies, etc etc etc... Frankly nobody gives anybody any shit about where they’re at. It's part of the reason i live here. People let each other live the way they live. I doubt i'm in the only place in the world like that.

or, Why do people hate gay people?

Well, here at Newgrounds is it's own little culture. No offense to anyone, but it's predominantly a young male culture with all the fears, insecurities, and questions that come with being young and male (mostly in america, which has it's own special set of fears and insecurities.)

The thing about culture is that it reinforces itself. When it seems like all the people around you hate Gheys, then there is a lot of psychological pressure for you to do the same. In a way it all supports itself because as long as an individual in this culture thinks that is the norm they are more likely to feel pressure to conform to that perceived norm.

As someone who is bisexual, i would never look for support in this environment. That's why i have my friends, family, and my faith. Go to newgrounds to watch edgy flash, for support go to the people around you.

take it easy,

static

At 3/2/05 05:14 PM, staticnoise wrote: The thing about culture is that it reinforces itself. When it seems like all the people around you hate Gheys, then there is a lot of psychological pressure for you to do the same. In a way it all supports itself because as long as an individual in this culture thinks that is the norm they are more likely to feel pressure to conform to that perceived norm.

You're right. Peer pressure can be pretty strong. I guess if you have a group of homophobic friends; being the lone voice trying to defend gay people wouldn't be easy. The most likely reaction (in younger teenagers at least) would probably be "What? You support the gays?! OMG YOU MUST BE GAY!! HE'S GAY!" etc.

wow, I need to come into the political area if I wanna see some well devloped ideas. I've been hanging out the General Section and all I saw was kids with torrets syndrome yelling out random things....

Me on The Gay Marriage thing:
There are two types of marriages. Religious and civil. The States do not recognize religious ones, which is why you go to the courthouse. Gays primarily want the rights that are granted due to a civil marriage. So any religious problems with the marriage issues is off base and unwarranted. There would be NO religion involved in a civil marriage so bible thumpers need to shut up in that area.

THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE AND GAYS IN GENERAL WILL NEVER GO AWAY!!!
There...it won't go away. You can not like them, not agree with them or whatever but they wont go away. This debate is one of the last in the civil rights movement and those who are actively against it are amongst the same mindset that was against womens rights, giving blacks the right to vote, givig women the right to vote and going all the way back - freeing the slaves.

Whether you like it or not there will always be gay people on this planet. So you can either grumble away in build up resentment or you can learn compassion and develop a little understanding about people that are different. The fact of the matter is, having a gay couple marry or do whatever effects you in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. Does it effect your religion, your job, your faith, you marriage, you partner, oil prices, wars, the economy, or really anything that actually matters in this world? No? Well then shut up. The only thing it may effect is your own mind...you may be disgusted at seeing two men sticking their toungues down each others throat. Then you can get up go home and go to bed. Big fucking deal.

People spend a wealth of time and energy on preventing the happiness and freedoms of others and I'm getting sick of this power people think they can exert over each other. Especially when it has little or no effect on them.

So bottom line, society changes, this isn't the same world it was 20 years ago. The gay issue will never go away. There were times when men used to sneer about women being allowed to do some of the same jobs as men. It was an old way of thinking that was very egocentric. So either get with the times or turn into a bitter person that will continue to spread hate and negativity.

At 3/2/05 04:37 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 3/2/05 04:04 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: There is no degree/qualification that makes any person more or less qualified to argue on this subject, therefore I was attempting to stop people discarding my views with the words ignorant or stupid.

Actually I would say there are qualifications in arguing on something like this, given they arn't very extensive. Basically if you make judgements beyond "eww thats gross" and actually know a gay person then I think you have some right to debate it. Unfortunately people on both sides will blindly take a side "just because" and fight bitterly about it despite not having a clue.

Well then, I work with gay people if that is a good enough qualification (not solely, or even mainly). i like to think I did make judgements beyond eww thats gross (not that you have specifically accused me of doing that), but I included it as a reason, along with others. I dont think it neccessary to have met a gay person (or many) to make a judgement on this issue however, we all know there are many reasonable gay people, but im discussing whether I approve of their other side, not their personality.

O.O I didn't think anyone against gay marriage would admit that. Thank you for proving me wrong and thus supporting the gay marriage movement.

It isn't the end all be all, but it is a useful dynamic. Especially once you consider that many people that are against gay marriage claim it will "detrimental to society." These people are usually also those that believe that homosexuality is detrimental to the world.

Well then dont tar anyone who isnt pro-gay with the samebrush, and also dont assume I have any great passion against gays.

I don't dislike anything based on the fact that it is different. In fact, I really don't see a single group of people I can step back and say "I don't like them" with the exception of bigots, racists, etc.

Indeed I never said my reason for disliking them was they are different, these were words put into my mouth.

That's basically how things work in the political forum and well... life. If you have an opinion on a "political issue" it's under scrutany. So I questioned your opinion just as you can question mine.

You implied that this was not a topic about opinions and therefore what I said was worthless (as they were opinions, i'll admit).

A response on the other reply.

you mean this?

I wrote a reply to you and the nightwatchman (a mistake looking at the way he has gone off the rails), repeating myself was boring me.

Well there is a simple reason for this. Unlike you they aren't just defending an issue, they are defending an essential part of themselves. If someone was attacking you because you are a white male, you would defend yourself as just that... a white male. It is a way of establishing and protecting their identity.

I dont think gay people are under attack.

Yup, read it all. I even already responded to that already. What you basically said on the issue at hand is that it is more socially acceptable for women to be physical with each other. That hardly transfers into "Its part of our society to treat women with more respect than men."

I said more than that, I discussed the way we treat them differently in all social aspects, not just the homosexual side of it. (and im suggesting that this is why we treat homosexual men and women differently, not just because it is more common).

Ok... I don't understand how you can dislike something so strongly yet be perfectly civil to it. It's better than some of the other people I guess. Oh well, I can't make you change your mind.

Who said I dislike gays so strongly? But I made a post about countries if you can understand where I am coming from off that one. I dislike gays as a country perhaps, not really on an individual level (though I am more inclined to dislike a gay person I guess).

I took what you said to mean that greek men were penetrating their slaves without any kind of reciprocation, which I'm pretty sure wasn't necisarrily the case.

People were using the fact that the greeks (obviously an immpressive race) were gay as some kind of evidence there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The fact that greeks only penetrated slaves shows they were not overly comfortable with the penetration idea either. At least not the recieving part anyway, todays gays have no such qualms (or slaves either to be fair).

At 3/2/05 04:39 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Well when you give hypocritical statements, you do genuinely invite people to say that you are making hypocritical statements.

I meant the 'call me a hypocrite if you wish' statement.

Your biology tells you that you are a straight man. Does it then seem justified that you act out as a heterosexual? If so, how does it not justify the acts of a gay man simply doing what his biology is telling him to do?

If you want to talk biology im sure we can all agree the acts between a man and a woman are far more natural than those between two men.

So then why are you contributing to this thread at all if you aren't making a proposal, other than to state reasons that have already been said?

Wait so we must fall into two categories if we wish to join this debate? I must be either completely pro gay wishing them all the freedoms of the world, or I must want them drowned at birth? I can disagree with something but think it unworthy of punishment. I wouldnt propose we punish children for swearing in public (beyong the chastisment their parents should deal out), though it often brings a wince to my face.

So what does this prove? (is it just me or is this guy not making a whole hell of a lot of sense? Maybe I'm just dense) Ok, so you dislike them or their characteristics... so?

So this is a topic about why people dislike gays, I offered the idea that I dislike some of their charcteristics (or the charcteristics they seem to have more than straight men).

Then what ARE you proposing (if anything)? As for what you are saying about pedophiliacs, this is a situation of rape. Rape and Love are two different things, so you do not have to accept a pedophiliac. Also... what do you mean "for there have been pedophiliac cultures"? You mean there have been cultures where pedophilia was encouraged or legal? Yes, it was also encouraged or legal to kill a black man because he was black in our past, what does this have to do with the present?

On a Scottish Island (a tiny one) there was a small community that accepted paedophilia as part of their everyday life, where the parents actually gave their children to other men (and where the children didnt think it was wrong either). When this was discovered the men involved were imprisoned, despite the fact it was part of their culture (a culture doesnt have to be an entire nation). (recent by the way, within a year I suspect). ie im not just talking of past cultures (though looking at my post I did use the word have).

If I'm reading this right, then I would have to say that this gives the speaker credibility on the issue. By saying that they are part of the minority that is experiencing discrimination, it shows that they have merit in their words because they have personally experienced the discrimination themselves.

No it shows he is biassed as far as im concerned.

What's the difference between me saying that you are a hypocrite and you telling your joke about "as far away as possible"? Difference: People in general can be offended by your words that have no justification. My words are directed solely at you based on what you have said. Difference: My judgement is based on the character that you have displayed. Your judgement is based on a group through generalizations. Whether you intended it to be a joke or not, you have to realize that just because it was a joke, that doesn't strip it of responsibility if people are offended by it.

No perhaps not, but gays do have one thing going for them, where would I be without my gay jokes (exclusively aimed at straight men). Hmm, I was out the other week, stood in a bar when I felt someone pinch my side, turned round and saw a man behind me, was a little shocked, said are you alright, turned around, turns out my bastard mate was behind him and he f'ing pinched me, the look on my face (when I turned round) kept him laughing all night ;-( guess that one was aimed at me ;-/. No not much to do with anything, but it was pretty funny ;-). Clearly though, I dont take gays as serious as those around me (on this forum), or their issues, should they be allowed to marry? I say dont rock the boat.

YOU were the one who said that you may be a hypocrite in your words... I only showed you where this assumption could be true. Notice how I never called you names like biggot, sexist, etc etc, because I do not know you personally, so I have no right to give you these labels. In your own arguements, you were contradicting yourself, so I DO have sufficient evidence to call you on it.

Then show me where I have contradicting myself (its much easier to be organised in your mind on these issues than it is to transfer them into writing, though I have mused, thought upon a few thoughts).

I have seen both straight men and straight women kiss each other... just because you haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

But it is less common.

And I treat men and women differently depending on the character of the individual. Of course, men and women ARE different in some respects, but that doesn't mean that we should say it is socially acceptable for women to love each other and not men. (yes, you did not say this directly... or maybe you did... either way, this is the message you are sending).

As men and women are different they should be treated differently, you are right I am sending that message.

What do you care if there are heterosexuals and homosexuals alike out there? Saying that you "wish love was solely an act between men and women" does nothing to make it happen... so why even bring it up when we are talking about how gays should be treated equally to straights? Honestly, you should look at WHY you dislike gays so much, I mean some founded reasons WHY, and base your arguments on these aspects as well, not just on "how you feel".

Perhaps you can tell me WHY you like gays so much? (or support their cause). As you cannot understand my point of view you cannot accept it, I have said why I feel against it, or tried to say why, but at the end of the day it comes down to what my gut tells me, and my gut tells me this isnt something I want to support. When I discover something new and I like or dislike it I dont think to myself why do I like this, or why do I dislike this, I just do.

At 3/3/05 12:22 PM, Acosta wrote: wow, I need to come into the political area if I wanna see some well devloped ideas. I've been hanging out the General Section and all I saw was kids with torrets syndrome yelling out random things....

Welcome to Politics Acosta. If you have a mind at all (and it seems that you do based on what you said) then don't always waste it on those in General, come and pay us a visit from time to time!

Welcome to Politics Acosta. If you have a mind at all (and it seems that you do based on what you said) then don't always waste it on those in General, come and pay us a visit from time to time!

hey thanks, I try. Maybe someone will respond to it but it seems like we just got 2 people bickering back and forth without establishing much forward thinking or ahead. They just seem to be locked in an argument and keeping it up. Maybe it came up in the last 10 pages but neither of them really said anything relevant to the point - more personal issues.

But anyway...thanks, I'll stick around.

These threads are really circular, especially after about 6 pages. Same arguments, same fallacies (on both sides,) same examples, and so on.

At 3/3/05 01:47 PM, Gutmunchr wrote: I meant the 'call me a hypocrite if you wish' statement.

Right, you openly invited people to call you a hypocrite if you were being hypocritical... you were, so I called you a hypocrite. You invited it, why are you "offended" by it? You gave us permission to do so!

If you want to talk biology im sure we can all agree the acts between a man and a woman are far more natural than those between two men.

More frequent, yes, more natural, no. Have you ever thought that perhaps there are gay people to reduce the overpopulation of the world? I'm not saying this theory is correct, but it is a possibility, is it not? So then, wouldn't they be 'natural' in that they are trying to create homeostasis on our planet? Also, look at other creatures on this planet, we are not the only ones committing homosexual acts (and before you say "well those are animals", even dolphins display this behaviour, and they may be more intelligent than we know, because they possess a pre-frontal lobe... something that separates us from most animals).

Wait so we must fall into two categories if we wish to join this debate?

No, if you are going to speak passionately about a topic on here, you have to show a purpose or reason behind your words to make valid arguments.

So this is a topic about why people dislike gays, I offered the idea that I dislike some of their charcteristics.

You just said to Jmaster that you are not judging their personality, but you tell me you judge their characteristics.... ummm, could you explain what you mean by this?

On a Scottish Island (a tiny one) there was a small community that accepted paedophilia as part of their everyday life, where the parents actually gave their children to other men (and where the children didnt think it was wrong either). When this was discovered the men involved were imprisoned, despite the fact it was part of their culture (a culture doesnt have to be an entire nation). (recent by the way, within a year I suspect). ie im not just talking of past cultures (though looking at my post I did use the word have).

Thanks for the history lesson... what does this pedophiliac community have to do with gays exactly?

No it shows he is biassed as far as im concerned.

I would disagree, being baised is assumed. Everyone is biased.

No perhaps not, but gays do have one thing going for them, where would I be without my gay jokes (exclusively aimed at straight men). Hmm, I was out the other week, stood in a bar when I felt someone pinch my side, turned round and saw a man behind me, was a little shocked, said are you alright, turned around, turns out my bastard mate was behind him and he f'ing pinched me, the look on my face (when I turned round) kept him laughing all night ;-( guess that one was aimed at me ;-/. No not much to do with anything, but it was pretty funny ;-). Clearly though, I dont take gays as serious as those around me (on this forum), or their issues, should they be allowed to marry? I say dont rock the boat.

You have to give a reason why though... and I mean a valid reason that has not been disproven yet. That's all well and good that you can joke around with your friends, that doesn't harm anyone, it's between the two of you. However, you invited yourself to make an open joke to anyone who reads this thread... that's where things like joking around can go too far (after all, you and your friend know each other, and know that either of you will be offended by gay jokes -I'm assuming-... you do not know this about everyone on here, so you should keep your gay jokes to yourself).

Then show me where I have contradicting myself (its much easier to be organised in your mind on these issues than it is to transfer them into writing, though I have mused, thought upon a few thoughts).

Omg... do you forget every discussion that happens on here before you post? Look at a previous one between you and JMaster, he showed you where you contradicted yourself. Here's one obvious one that I remember though, and I'll paraphrase: "It's ok for women to like each other but not men". That is being hypocritical. To say that being gay for one sex is ok, but for another sex, for it not to be.

But it is less common.

But it still happens. Is there a specific 'frequency of occurance threshold' that this has to cross to become a fact?

As men and women are different they should be treated differently, you are right I am sending that message.

Whoa whoa whoa buddy, I never said women and men should be treated differently. I agreed that we have differences between the two genders (mostly biological) but that does NOT mean I advocate treating the two genders differently. I'm all for gender equality.

Perhaps you can tell me WHY you like gays so much? (or support their cause). As you cannot understand my point of view you cannot accept it, I have said why I feel against it, or tried to say why, but at the end of the day it comes down to what my gut tells me, and my gut tells me this isnt something I want to support. When I discover something new and I like or dislike it I dont think to myself why do I like this, or why do I dislike this, I just do.

Why do I support gays? Because, they are a minority that are subject to hate... unfounded hate. I think this is wrong, and as a straight man (part of a majority) I help them to have a voice on issues that relate specifically to them and have little to nothing to do with other people, so that they can be heard.

That's ok if you follow your gut instinct, that is something that works for you. If you are going to join in on a debate about gays though, you have to show valid reasons behind WHY you don't like gays, not that you just don't like them. If you don't have valid reasons, then your argument loses it's strength.

At 3/3/05 03:46 PM, Maus wrote: These threads are really circular, especially after about 6 pages. Same arguments, same fallacies (on both sides,) same examples, and so on.

What else do you expect? If someone just joins in on the discussion, most people don't bother to read the previous pages because it is too much work. It is then up to the people who have been on this debate for a long time, to tell the n00bs that their arguments have already been said, and give reasons behind it so they believe you.

Apathy, what a pain in the ass. I'd do something to fight apathy, but I just don't feel like.... alright, that was pretty lame humour, but you get the idea.

Thanks for the history lesson... what does this pedophiliac community have to do with gays exactly?

well a argument that I hear come up a good bit is that allowing gay marriage will start a downward trend of society. They'll often bring up incest and what not. The old 'where' do we draw the line? Which is interesting because a large portion of the population is also against gun control. They want the line to be drawn as far as the institution of marriage but not as far as instruments of killing.

But incest, pedophiles or marrying your dog is so far removed from the gay debate that it's pointless to even argue with the person at that point. The basis of the argument is gays. And the key part is gay marriage...well why can't they have a civil union and just be happy with that? Well I'm glad you asked Mr.Voice...

issues with just giving gays civil unions and not a state recognized marriage:

- with civil unions the way it is setup now you would have to re-establish that union if you ever moved to a new state. Requiring tons in legal fees if it is even legal in the new state. Marriage is recognized by all states based on the laws of the state the couple were married in.

- If you have an auto accident your wife can make medical decisions on your behalf, be informed of your medical condition etc. This does not hold true for civil unions

- Civil Unions cannot confer any of the Federal benefits. Such as Social Security, military or private pensions cannot be transferred with a Civil Union.

- A couple in a civil union could be brought up in trial to testify against their partner. If married this is not possible.

- A couple could not have the dignity to be buried together in a National Cemetery if one is a veteran.

- Cannot file a joint tax return

- If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.

- According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

- Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs

- Though people may think about marriage in different ways, there are only two types of marriage - either civil or religious. In some ceremonies, both are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage. However, to receive the legal protections of marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.

- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen's right to freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The founders of American government made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice. In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil marriage. As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does with regard to civil marriage

At 2/5/05 08:17 PM, DavSngSorrow wrote: why do people hate gay people they act like it is a disease or something this fuckin pisses me off i am gay myself

People hate gays for the same reason they hate any other group of people. I happen to think it’s pointless to gripe about these sorts of things. Its not like you can change these peoples minds. Then again, I’m a straight white male so no one has ever openly hated me or been intolerant of me that I’m aware of, so perhaps I’m not the best to talk.

At 3/3/05 03:51 PM, mofomojo wrote: Gay people don't choose to be gay

Care to prove how this is so?

At 3/3/05 04:29 PM, 36noir wrote:

At 3/3/05 03:51 PM, mofomojo wrote: Gay people don't choose to be gay

Care to prove how this is so?

there is a school of thought in the gay community that want to establish it as a choice. They fear that if it is some chemical / biological difference that people will want to remove this from children and pre-determine their lifestyle.