Yes, the concern for the children has been mentioned.
Gay Rights?
- Thread starter SoliOdi
- Start date
Yes, the concern for the children has been mentioned.
Re: The problem ...
As I always said to right-wingers who complained, "oh, because of Bill Clinton, my child was exposed to oral sex," in response, "no, your child was exposed to the details of oral sex because people love to gossip about sex."
My wife and I don't share our love life with people we know in real-life. But people constantly complain how my wife and I (of over 10 years, known each other over 13) "act like newlyweds." People also try to gossip and pry things out of our love making, when discussing. We never say anything other than to object to judgement. E.g., most of our friends now assume we have outercourse (e.g., tit-fucking), oral sex, etc... not because we said we did, but because both of us have objected (medically as well as spiritually) to people trying to tell us what people should and should not do.
Although it's rather funny to see them gossip about it in almost great envy.
I meant to clarify this before, there is nothing wrong with being pre-occupied with sex. The problem is that many people (at least in the US) that are pre-occupied with other people's sex! It's rather sad when people justify their morality, their superiority or otherwise use it as an excuse to talk about sex, when they go and judge what other people may or may not be doing in their bedroom.
As I always said to right-wingers who complained, "oh, because of Bill Clinton, my child was exposed to oral sex," in response, "no, your child was exposed to the details of oral sex because people love to gossip about sex."
My wife and I don't share our love life with people we know in real-life. But people constantly complain how my wife and I (of over 10 years, known each other over 13) "act like newlyweds." People also try to gossip and pry things out of our love making, when discussing. We never say anything other than to object to judgement. E.g., most of our friends now assume we have outercourse (e.g., tit-fucking), oral sex, etc... not because we said we did, but because both of us have objected (medically as well as spiritually) to people trying to tell us what people should and should not do.
Although it's rather funny to see them gossip about it in almost great envy.
Your points are good, so I'll use your same logic to argue against you.
One more thing: next time, and every time thereafter, there is a personal insult or jibe of any form, any kind of degrading insult which I have had it up to my neck with from you, I will report the post. I let a lot of other insults go, but yours happen, ooh, how about, every other post you make in response to one of my posts, and I am sick to death of being name-called.
Don't bother saying "when did I ever insult you" because I could fill a whole thread with every time I've been called one thing or another by you. We have rights on this board too: rights not to be talked down to, name called, and flamed. So cut it out
Fox
Like your so perfect and never insult anybody...Jesus Christ man I could make a list of the insults you've said to me (hate-mongerer, war-mongerer, racist to name a few) and so can Georges so stop whining. By the way it's real pussy move to make threats to people especially on a porn-based web board. The problem with you Fox is that you say we all have a right to an opinion it's just that you never like what other people have to say especially if they disagree with you, you simply don't want to hear it. Based on what I've read in the few months I've been on here is that you actually believe that you're always right. To people that disagree with you that's the biggest INSULT of all because it shows that you have no balls to admit when you may be wrong.
I have to agree Fox, you're rather two-faced on this matter and won't fess up to your own shortcomings. I'm man enough to admit what I say and do and what results it garners -- on this board (more left-wing), on other boards (more conservative), etc...
Fox, you're really someone who doesn't need to throw stones at a glass house. It's the reason I finally and negatively rep'd you on my 9/11 post -- you were way out of line and your post was unwarranted give the clarifications and contexts I made and you totally ignored.
Why? Because you like to throw stones at a glass house.
We all carry the burden of what we ourselves say, and should not blame others or threaten to report them for the same transgressions we ourselves are often guilty of. Especially you and I fox, which is why I never threaten or blame like you did just there.
the better question is why SHOULDNT they have rights?
Straight men have rights, why do they suddenly lose those rights when they turn gay? what was changed? is homosexuality against the consitution and now they are not equal citizens?
Oh, it's against God and it's offensive to the church, right?
Fuck it, don't get married in a church, get married in Vegas, it's cheaper and you don't have to invite anyone you don't like.
Straight men have rights, why do they suddenly lose those rights when they turn gay? what was changed? is homosexuality against the consitution and now they are not equal citizens?
Oh, it's against God and it's offensive to the church, right?
Fuck it, don't get married in a church, get married in Vegas, it's cheaper and you don't have to invite anyone you don't like.
I'm two faced? I admit I'm a dick most of the time so what the hell are you talking about?
OK, it is time to be more than clear with you and make you understand that I am not kidding.
Did I insult a single time in that thread? Of course not. So before lieing shamelessly, get your facts straights and recheck them if necessary. I called you a hippie pinko commie but it wasn't an insult, it was and is the reality, want it or not. I too got called by Nightfly, Brino and other people who didn't like some of my views.
But what is the most problematic with you is your anti americanism. Very often you show a such hatred against America that is very hard to remain calm and not angered. Perhaps at every of your post showing hatred or very severe dislike of America, I should report you because anti americanism is a form of racsim and hatred. Disliking leftism/communism is a political choice but anti americanism isn't tolerable and hasn't to be tolerated.
And I 100% agree I'm the last person who should tell you your posts are out-of-line (although you were virtually the only person out-of-line on my 9/11 thread, most everyone else told me). You see I, like Lord Vader, are self-aware jerks. We admit our short-comings. We don't go around telling people not to insult us, etc... because we'd be hypocrites to do so!
But you, my friend, still don't know when to not be a hypocrite. You go around insulting others yourself, then complain when take offense to anything that is said. You don't see the insults you make, but turn around and expect everyone to have viewpoints you do and somehow read your mind when something in an insult. You have two standards -- things that offend you and complete confusion when what you say insults others and refuse to admit that.
In other words, when it comes to what people say to you, if it insults you, you take it as an insult, no matter what others say. But when it comes to what you say to other people, if you think it wasn't an insult -- no matter how someone else took it -- you believe it was not an insult. Your intent only matters, but no one else's intent does. That's a double-standard and being two-faced. This isn't about "being modded," it's about recognizing your own faults, especially when you're pointing out the same ones in others!
Learn to admit you are a jerk and insulting at times like Lord Vader and I and you will get more respect from others. Until then, you have your double standard and it gets really old at times. I don't like what Lord Vader says a lot -- and I even agree with you more in the end. But at least Lord Vader can admit how he approaches things, so I'm going to respect him more, regardless of how I feel about what he says.
Now I've made 2 posts on this, which is clearly off-topic from the thread. If this example doesn't point out the obviousness of the truth to you, I don't know what will, and I won't post again. My apologies to everyone in this thread for pointing it out, but I really want Fox to realize what he does -- even if I like him personally and agree with many of his (at least non-leadership-related) posts and viewpoints. Learn to not point fingers when many others could point the same finger back at you.
My personal view on this is strictly one of indifference in such a way that if two gays would like to be married, then its their business. I believe in the concept that marriage is a purely man-made (sorry for not being inclusive but you get my point) abstract object. As such, it does not exist outside human interpretation and as such should be flexiable with human desires and wants. Of course, someone will argue that sex is a biological function between man and woman, and that man/man and woman/woman is against biology. To this I ask you, does it bother you? You are not engaging in such actions and are not party to them, why would someone else's private business be an affront to you. There was a time when a blowjob was considered indecent and not intended, would you like to have someone tell you this day and age that you can't get one?
My personal view on gay couples is something I won't post as it's likely to offend people but their rights are something I would never hate against.
As for foxelipus, the words "shit starter" mean anything to you? I've ignored most the posts you made in the past for various reasons, usually cause I can't seem to figure out most of what you say but there is a reason you get flamed. I have nothing against you or any prior experience with you, I'm telling you straight up that people flame you because you usually do something to provoke it.
My personal view on gay couples is something I won't post as it's likely to offend people but their rights are something I would never hate against.
As for foxelipus, the words "shit starter" mean anything to you? I've ignored most the posts you made in the past for various reasons, usually cause I can't seem to figure out most of what you say but there is a reason you get flamed. I have nothing against you or any prior experience with you, I'm telling you straight up that people flame you because you usually do something to provoke it.
Aces&Jacks
Retired Mod
I like you guys and you all have strong and nicely written opinions. So it will be really unfortunate if the Mods have to ban you all for continuously arguing in these threads. STAY ON TOPIC AND LEAVE YOUR PERSONAL SHIT OUT OF THESE THREADS.
Amen!
My apologies to the professor I misread your post.
I believe that homosexuality is counter productive (literally lol) in regard to the human race. ie less chances of reproduction...
But as an Aussie i am an advocate of free speech and expression, so I guess while I have my opinion, those who live that lifestyle can go about it as well.
But as an Aussie i am an advocate of free speech and expression, so I guess while I have my opinion, those who live that lifestyle can go about it as well.
It is counter productive to the individual, not the species. A higher degree of homosexuality (or other way of reducing birth rates) would actually be one of the best things that could happen to our species at the moment. We're far too many, the planet is essentially overloaded. Do us all a favor; turn gay today.
Any reason for why an individual would not want to or be able to have children is counter productive in the biological sense. It's genetic suicide.
As being left handed, possibly. Being black (or being white to be specific) is the result of evolution adapting us to hot or cold climates. Being left handed is technically a defect if I remember correctly. As is being homosexual (and numerous other things), a quantifiable difference in certain areas of the brain. That is unless there is a rational reason for why evolution would implement such a thing in certain individuals (such as removing defective genes, though I've seen nothing to indicate that hetrosexuals have less defective genes than homosexuals on average).
People get offended by that, personally, I think it's rather silly. Most likely it's because they mix in morality with what should be fairly simple biology. Most people have some type of defect although most are too small to notice. Doesn't make it wrong or dangerous. For the most part, it's fairly irrelevant, especially in a species that is as successful as we have been. Like I said, at this point, it could even be considered positive for our continued survival.
Hardly. Biological urges are still alive and well. We've just developed enough cognitive ability to lie to ourselves and suppress them. The alternative is that the urges are gone, we're all just incredibly bloody stupid.
I think you're wrong about that Imagine. You're confusing the psychological with the biological, and saying that they are the same thing. Unless a physical action is involuntary reflex, then it's not a biological imparitive, it's just a rationalized pyschology (in this case, the rational concludes that anything that can be rationalized is biologically and evolutionary pre-determined, contrary to any real evidence connecting them.) Just because a person Can do something doesn't mean that they are supposed to. To think that anyone is supposed to do anything, when it's clearly in thier biological, psychological and all other abilites to Not do that... well, that my my freind is called a moral arguement.
From an evolutionary viewpoint only the species with the best adapted genes would reproduce, because there is no other point for any other organism to do so. In fact, inferior genetics should lose the abilty to reproduce because they just continue to further inferior genes, even among organisms that are more fit. Clearly that is not what happens, so it's not a matter of evolution.
All we really know is that animals reproduce. Outside of human consciousness we have no idea about what is motivating them to do so. Take the salmon for example. A female will lay it's eggs and a male will release his sperm to fertalize them. Since the match up is entirely random they don't have any idea what genetic combination it will achieve, further disproving the evolution viewpoint. The adult salmon will also die afterwards with no guarantee that they will have been successful at reproduction. That shows that the entire species of salmon is counter-productive to the individual.
I mean shit, you could take the evidence and argue that maybe animals are just horny and they like to fuck and lack the mental abilty to use contraceptive, and reproduction is just an unintended result. so it's the sign of a higher intelligence and organism to not reproduce.
From an evolutionary viewpoint only the species with the best adapted genes would reproduce, because there is no other point for any other organism to do so. In fact, inferior genetics should lose the abilty to reproduce because they just continue to further inferior genes, even among organisms that are more fit. Clearly that is not what happens, so it's not a matter of evolution.
All we really know is that animals reproduce. Outside of human consciousness we have no idea about what is motivating them to do so. Take the salmon for example. A female will lay it's eggs and a male will release his sperm to fertalize them. Since the match up is entirely random they don't have any idea what genetic combination it will achieve, further disproving the evolution viewpoint. The adult salmon will also die afterwards with no guarantee that they will have been successful at reproduction. That shows that the entire species of salmon is counter-productive to the individual.
I mean shit, you could take the evidence and argue that maybe animals are just horny and they like to fuck and lack the mental abilty to use contraceptive, and reproduction is just an unintended result. so it's the sign of a higher intelligence and organism to not reproduce.
It is called macroevolution and is not always benefitial to the individual.
People who come to that conclusion are generally the people who would be against it whether it was a traceable defect or not.
I do (or would if I was asked, it's not a hot topic to discuss or think about really). I don't go around pointing out to people that they are defective, but even if it did, it'd just make me rather rude, not wrong.
I'm not talking about discrimination. That's a social issue. I'm talking about actual, physical differences between the brain of a hetrosexual and a homosexual. As far as I'm concerned, people can be defective all they want as long as no one else gets hurt as a result of it. It's not a bad thing (necessarily). Einstein had a defective brain (having some very interesting connections between creative and logical areas, although it may have developed through use rather than having a genetic cause), and that turned out fairly well. It's no reason to treat people differently, unless their specific defect requires it.
Although regarding having children, again, that brings another person into the equation. Doing a study is fairly reasonable, hell, it makes more sense than half the studies I've seen made. I'm big on wellfare of children and animals, mostly because neither has had a chance to prove to me what complete bastards they are (and the reason I like animals is obviously because they never do). It's no different from studies about children of single parents or being raised by grandparents or older siblings etc.
Suppressing them doesn't make them go away. If anything, those who can do that will be eliminated from the gene pool and leave room for those that don't. There are however valid reason for why one would not want to have a child. Not being able to care for it is, for example. Although this is generally not true in the western world, society can trigger the same psychological response (through stress mostly). Quite possibly it will manifest itself as a fairly rational "I don't want to have a child right now", but that doesn't mean instincts have been overridden somehow. An animal would not want a child either under certain circumstances, but it can't reflect on why.
As for your particular wishes, we'll see. I can think of few things I'd like less than to have a child right now, but I have no doubt that I nontheless will end up with one eventually, given the opportunity.
-
Psychology is rooted in biology. Basic urges; food and reproduction certainly is.
That would be true in a system with only one niche. However, due to specialization and isolation, different species evolve. What matters is that you are fit enough to survive, not necessarily that you're at the top of the food chain. In cases where the isolation of two species occupying the same niche has been broken, often one will become extinct (or move somewhere else, or through evolution change enough to find another niche). If the isolation is not broken, then your genes are not inferior if only because there is nothing to compare them to. Had humans stayed away from America long enough, we may very well have seen species over there making fire and using tools. But since we've occupied that niche, it's unlikely it will happen (until inter-stellar travel becomes a reality at least).
I don't know a lot about the life cycle of the salmon, but I can't say I see anything directly disproving evolution. Even assuming mates are chosen at random, it doesn't mean anything. With so many offspring, it's a cruel game of dice where the stronger have an advantage. I can't explain the death of the parents, but I assume there is a reason for it. Perhaps they are unable to produce further offspring and therefore die to give them the best chances of surviving. The individual interest is to reproduce, whether that requires the individual to die in the process or not. I'd have to read up on the salmon, but quite frankly, I'm not that interested.
You could, but it would make little sense. It would fail to explain why primitive life reproduces. Occam's razor.
