Curse

Akhilleus · Oct 26, 2005, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Hey mon, you may be right, but the flame at the end helps these things spiral into closure.

Creationists. Now there's a topic for a new thread.

it wasnt a flame so much as a statement to point out that NOONE studying human genetics woulod outright dismiss the existence fo a genetic predesposition to homosexuality, without full well knowing that the research generally accepted by the scientific community conclusively determined that such a thing is not a possibility.
its just as baseless and idiotic as the unfounded church-sanctioned suggestion in the 1300s that the world could not possibly be round.

Polloloco3 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:13 PM // 19:13

The target comment on my education was a bit unwarranted though.

TheEPIC · Oct 26, 2005, 07:13 PM // 19:13

I see the problem being that there is gonna be a massive flame war between the two sides of the arguments. Unfortunately I just don't seeing this thread remaining civil much longer

splash_79 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir skulkcrasher

As for splash_79, if you have a problem with this thread, take it up with a mods and see if they want to close it.

I already did.

And to all of you utilising the freedom of speech argument, read a law book. The constitutional freedoms always clash with each other. That's why there are limitations on them. This, btw, is not public space but a privately operated web site. It's up to the mods wether this goes against what they find acceptable. I'll draw my own conclusions based on that.

MSecorsky · Oct 26, 2005, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

it wasnt a flame so much as a statement to point out that NOONE studying human genetics woulod outright dismiss the existence fo a genetic predesposition to homosexuality, without full well knowing that the research generally accepted by the scientific community conclusively determined that such a thing is not a possibility.
its just as baseless and idiotic as the unfounded church-sanctioned suggestion in the 1300s that the world could not possibly be round.

That may be true, but it did close with the feel of a flame, hence my comment. If that wasn't the case, I do apologise.

kg_lildude1 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftAlone-

Oh.. another random thing came to my mind...
It seems that a female being bi or lesbo is more acceptable in the society than a male being gay/bi..

Just a random though..

lets face it like this, females understand eachother, men don't understand eachother or females

a female being bi or lesbo is more acceptable because lets face it, around 7/10 people off a street would rather see a lesbian couple walking down the street than a gay couple

whats hillarious for me is that in my government class today, we had a huge open discussion about Title 9, which mandates that whatever men have, women must also have, and visa-versa. Like a lot of colleges had to close down their FOOTBALL teams, because they couldn't afford to have a female team.

kind of makes you wonder why female homo/bisexuality is more acceptable than male, because, wouldn't under title 9 a male homo/bisexual couple deserve the same acceptability level as a female one?

just kind of makes you wonder how hipocritical our country is...

Lasareth · Oct 26, 2005, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_lildude1

lets face it like this, females understand eachother, men don't understand eachother or females

a female being bi or lesbo is more acceptable because lets face it, around 7/10 people off a street would rather see a lesbian couple walking down the street than a gay couple

whats hillarious for me is that in my government class today, we had a huge open discussion about Title 9, which mandates that whatever men have, women must also have, and visa-versa. Like a lot of colleges had to close down their FOOTBALL teams, because they couldn't afford to have a female team.

kind of makes you wonder why female homo/bisexuality is more acceptable than male, because, wouldn't under title 9 a male homo/bisexual couple deserve the same acceptability level as a female one?

just kind of makes you wonder how hipocritical our country is...

You can thank all the testosterone-driven males who like seeing woman-on-woman for that. They don't even bother with the sociological aspect of it :|

Akhilleus · Oct 26, 2005, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by splash_79

And to all of you utilising the freedom of speech argument, read a law book.

i have, and ill reference Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) that open homosexuality passes not only the roth and memoirs test, but the more recent miller test.
GG, owned.

LeftAlone- · Oct 26, 2005, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Yeh....
I'll leave it as "Yeh" cuz Im tired to think of anything profoundly anymore..
Going to sleep now.. Good night...

MSecorsky · Oct 26, 2005, 07:21 PM // 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_lildude1

kind of makes you wonder why female homo/bisexuality is more acceptable than male,

Because we're men. There isn't a straight male out there that doesn't think in the back of his mind that he could join in that lesbian couple and really teach them some good lovin' or the like. Biologically it's easily tracable to the males programming to propogate far and wide while women tend to be programmed to nurture the young they have and develop a home environment. Men think we can propogate with any female (sexuality really doesn't come into play here), while women are more deeply rooted.

Omega Complex · Oct 26, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

We can forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light - Plato

And the whole point, yet again, is you will be who you will be.

Aracos79 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by splash_79

I already did.

And to all of you utilising the freedom of speech argument, read a law book. The constitutional freedoms always clash with each other. That's why there are limitations on them. This, btw, is not public space but a privately operated web site. It's up to the mods wether this goes against what they find acceptable. I'll draw my own conclusions based on that.

Forget a law book... try reading the Constitution itself, not what a bunch of lawyers have to say about it. The true intent of the Framers has been dead and buried for many, MANY years. But that's a topic for another thread... one that is not permitted on this board.

As it relates to the topic though... I've said it before and I'll say it again. People have the right to be morons. We can't restrict their speech simply on that basis, no matter how "noble" the intent.

Xue Yi Liang · Oct 26, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

first of all i should say i am not racist and i have absolutly nothing agasint gay individuals, but, because your post displays a COMPLETE lack of knowledge, derived from the so-called "politically correct" left i feel the need to correct you in YOUR incorrect assumptions.

The funny thing is that I don't come from the "left." I can't stand "political correctness" when it's applied indiscriminantly. I don't advocate censoring the word from the forums - that would be "indiscriminant" political correctness.

I don't even have a problem with people using harsh language like "f*ck" in a forum. But this is different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

first, i shall start with the dictionary definition of gay:

ADJECTIVE:
gay·er , gay·est
Overly excited state of emotion.
Lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Dissolute, licentious.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Given to social pleasures.

next i will inform you that the term "gay," in reference to homosexuals, WAS STARTED BY HOMOSEXUALS. why? it was used by homosexual males as an alternate term to the derogatory terms "faggot," "homo," and "queer."

I really wish you knew how naive it is to use the dictionary to bolster an argument that "gay" cannot be used in an offensive manner. Do you really believe it's not possible to use this word offensively? I'm not saying we should check ALL uses of the word - at least I'm requesting a bit of discretion when it's being applied.

Regarding the dictionary:
"f*ggot" is a bundle of sticks
"f*g" is a cigarette
"chink" is a small crack or fissure
"cracker" is something you eat

but used in the wrong context they can be unquestionably offensive. I don't think anyone would debate whether the term "cracker" was being used as an insult or not. The context would make it obvious. "gay" is no different.

Yes, homosexuals will identify themselves as being "gay," but that's not the same as saying things like "spammers are so gay."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

if you are insinuating that individuals with attention-deficit disorder are all bigots and racists, you, sir, are the one who needs to evaluate your social predespositions.

Actually I won't argue against the idea that my use of the term "attention deficient" may be offensive too.

However I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying that everyone who uses the term "gay," even as an insult, is trying to bash gays or that they're "homophobes." I believe that just about all of them are just using the term - they're not trying to put down homosexuality. I only have a problem with the use of "gay" as an insult - even though most people who do this aren't trying to be "homophobes."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

he word is not, so censoring the word will not help. that is, unless you are conceding to be homosexual is in nature derogatory?

as I said before, I'm not arguing for censoring the word. I'm against the use of it as a derogatory term.

Are you trying to say it's impossible to use "gay" in an offensive way?

If all you're saying is that banning every use of the term is wrong then you and I are on the same page. I'm not against the use of the word. Read my other posts more closely and you'll understand. I agree that indiscriminate political correctness is dangerous - that's why I'm not promoting a solid policy other than simple discretion on the use of the term.

So don't be so quick to assume you recognize a leftist political agenda - you'd be wrong.

Polloloco3 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:23 PM // 19:23

You fool me once, shame... shame on you.
But ya fool me, im not gonna be fooled again! -George Dubbaya

splash_79 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

i have, and ill reference Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) and Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) that open homosexuality passes not only the roth and memoirs test, but the more recent miller test.
GG, owned.

Cool...you just made my point. There are limitations to freedom of speech...Or in freedom of selling porn. Completely off-topic btw.

Akhilleus · Oct 26, 2005, 07:25 PM // 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by splash_79

Cool...you just made my point. There are limitations to freedom of speech...Or in freedom of selling porn. Completely off-topic btw.

incorrect.
the point of the case was to determine boundaries for what is constituted as indecent, and as such, is unprotected by the free-speech, free-press clauses of the first amendment.
the discussion of homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals tos peak out, passes the roth, memoirs and miller tests, and as such does NOT constitute indecency, and is as such protected by the frist amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

The funny thing is that I don't come from the "left." I can't stand "political correctness" when it's applied indiscriminantly. I don't advocate censoring the word from the forums - that would be "indiscriminant" political correctness.

I don't even have a problem with people using harsh language like "f*ck" in a forum. But this is different.
I really wish you knew how naive it is to use the dictionary to bolster an argument that "gay" cannot be used in an offensive manner. Do you really believe it's not possible to use this word offensively? I'm not saying we should check ALL uses of the word - at least I'm requesting a bit of discretion when it's being applied.

Regarding the dictionary:
"f*ggot" is a bundle of sticks
"f*g" is a cigarette
"chink" is a small crack or fissure
"cracker" is something you eat

but used in the wrong context they can be unquestionably offensive. I don't think anyone would debate whether the term "cracker" was being used as an insult or not. The context would make it obvious. "gay" is no different.

Yes, homosexuals will identify themselves as being "gay," but that's not the same as saying things like "spammers are so gay."

Actually I won't argue against the idea that my use of the term "attention deficient" may be offensive too.

However I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying that everyone who uses the term "gay," even as an insult, is trying to bash gays or that they're "homophobes." I believe that just about all of them are just using the term - they're not trying to put down homosexuality. I only have a problem with the use of "gay" as an insult - even though most people who do this aren't trying to be "homophobes."

as I said before, I'm not arguing for censoring the word. I'm against the use of it as a derogatory term.

Are you trying to say it's impossible to use "gay" in an offensive way?

i NEVER said gay cannot be used in an offensive manner, point out where i stated as such, you wont find it, because it doesnt exist.
but its the person and thier intentions that makes it offensive, not the word itself, so censoring the word will do noone any good.

Xue Yi Liang · Oct 26, 2005, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akhilleus

i NEVER said gay cannot be used in an offensive manner, point out where i stated as such, you wont find it, because it doesnt exist.
but its the person and thier intentions that makes it offensive, not the word itself, so censoring the word will do noone any good.

I don't want to censor the word. I NEVER said that. Censorship is a dangerous thing.

Read what I wrote again. You're preaching to the converted.

kg_lildude1 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:30 PM // 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Because we're men. There isn't a straight male out there that doesn't think in the back of his mind that he could join in that lesbian couple and really teach them some good lovin' or the like. Biologically it's easily tracable to the males programming to propogate far and wide while women tend to be programmed to nurture the young they have and develop a home environment. Men think we can propogate with any female (sexuality really doesn't come into play here), while women are more deeply rooted.

EXACTLY, which is why female homosexual/bisexual couple are more accepted on a gender wide scale

also, read the constitution, bill of rights, and the declaration of independence

law books beat around the bush to make everything seem hard, and use long definitions for simple answers

wsmcasey · Oct 26, 2005, 07:32 PM // 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Unnatural? As in not found in nature? By multiple definitions, you're wrong.

If you want to pick apart my words, then technically "yes", it's considered an unnatural act because it deviates from the behavioral or social norm in our society. So, by lack of a definition, you're wrong.

I know a few people that happen to be gay, and I think they are good people. I don't really feel the need to defend them because they are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

However, I have two key issues concerning gay men/boys.

1) I was molested by an 18 year old teenage boy that lived in my neighborhood when I was 7 years old, and was forced to do things that I would rather not discuss. It didn't make me gay, but it really confused me growing up.

2) I've had more than one occasion when gay men have made sexual advances towards me, even after I was married. I remember at a place I used to work in my early 20's there were two gay men that were friends, and every time they passed me in the hall they would snicker, make comments about me, look at my crotch, and check out my ass. Needless to say I felt violated and I did nothing to provoke there advances.

The burning question is why do so many gay men feel the need to try and flip a straight man?

Speak up gay men, I would really like to know.

I believe the animosity towards gay men stems from similar situations that portray all gay men as evil sexual predators, but I know thats not true. It only takes one person to make everyone else look bad.

Akhilleus · Oct 26, 2005, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

I don't want to censor the word. I NEVER said that. Censorship is a dangerous thing.

in that case i am with you, but censoring the word gay because some 12 year old uses the term "gay build" is, in my opinion, not what is needed to difer from the term as offensive; they merely advertise their lack of an education; it is when someone uses it as a direct insult knowing full well its impact is to be recieved with emotional disgust, that the person needs to be limited, as the comment bears no qualifying facotr that could possibly justify its utterance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsmcasey

Okay, here's another opinion for you. Gay sex is a perverse unnatural act. The dictionary defines perversion as "a sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant". A D*ck in a mans *ss is pretty damn abnormal if you ask me! Being black is not perverse or unnatural in any way. Don't give me that crap about not having a choice over their sexual orientation. You could get drunk one night and bring down your inhibitions enough to have sex with a man or a woman. I have nothing against gay men or women (*huggs zhely), but I would be against a gay man coming on to me (which has happened, even when they knew I was straight). I've never seen a black man try to make a white man black. If I have offended anyone thats gay, I'm truely sorry, but you can't compare yourself to a different race.

are you aware that homosexuality is actually common in the animal world?
didnt think so.
you have been enlightened.