Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 254
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 255
Anime-Source.Com: Forums
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 499
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 501
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 502 Anime-Source.com :: View topic - Homosexuality: Your Opinion
EDIT: Don't forget to read the last posts in the previous page!!!
<------
KaRei wrote:
She said that she never HEARD about it, not that she don't BELIEVE despite of facts.
Well, now she has heard of it. Congratulations. One more person in the world is knowledgeable.
Quote:
If I see something as wrong so I should be quiet because it is behind the door? I shouldn't care because it is just their thing and if they want do things bad then let them do it that way?
No but I don't think that is what he is referring to. You see, you still haven't explained convincingly why homosexual behavior is inherently wrong. All you have said is that you think is wrong, but we knew that already.
Quote:
Although you would probably say that it isn't like that and that people should care but on homosexuality is nothing wrong because they don't hurt anybody, there is a sad fact that most of people by following this rule (care only when somebody hurts somebody) learned themselves to not care a lot. They learned to not care about things when somebody doesn't hurt anybody else that they are already also forgetting to care when somebody hurts already somebody else.
What? Where did you get THAT from? You see, Nobody ever spoke against mending damage that is already done. isn't that what true friends, family and even some professionals are for? to help you overcome your pain and move on with your life? Nobody said THAT was wrong.
Quote:
Here was a point from leoxjm that when his friend would want to suicide he would try to stop him. I don't doubt that he and most of people would try to stop their friend or somebody whom they would know. But how many people would then try to stop somebody absolutely unknown who want suicide?
Quick answer: not many. See, everyone in the world,(yes, everyone) has a certain level of convenience. if something is too inconvenient to do, if it is too much of a hassle, they are not gonna do it. I'm sure that includes you as well; you are not selfless, just like I am not.
I am not a saint. I, admittedly, don't always go too far out of my way to help others sometimes and honestly, do not always offer my help at 100%. Yes, sometimes it is inconvenient; and I'd rather do something else. But that doesn't mean that I never do it, or that you never do it. Are you saying that YOU are any different? Why do you say that "someone like me" wouldn't help an unknown person. Do You know for a fact that I have not done so? I really haven't had the opportunity, to talk to a suicidal stranger out of it, but if there is something that I am damn proud of is that from a long time ago I've listened to people when they've needed someone to hear them out. And that has included people I didn't know; the person sitting beside me in a class or in a bus. I've made a few friends like that.
Quote:
You would see somebody on a bridge above and it would be visible that that person want jump and suicide. How many people would remain below the bridge, just watching on him, and hom many people would try to find the way on the bridge and stop him? This thing about don't care taught people to not care too much even about things they should care already.
I have an answer for this, but it strays so far off topic that I'll not post it here and now. Actually, I'll create a new, more suitable thread soon.
Quote:
And then, I was like you in this and it isn't too long ago. I was also saying that why should I care if somebody decided to do something and that he isn't hurting anybody. This my stand resulted that I hurted somebody else. I begin to see what I didn't see before in what I was defending. I suddenly saw that what I was defending is standing on a thin ice and when this ice will break, it would be me who would be responsible for that because I did nothing.
Really? I only think that you made an error in judgment. You thought your inaction would not hurt anyone, but you failed to see how it would hurt others. You are a human, you make mistakes. I am the same. I just hope to have sufficient insight to see which of my actions or lack thereof will damage people. sometimes there is no way around it. A will damage someone, so will B and so will C. And in that case I will make a choice anyway. Sometimes the best path damages people; a friend of mine and her boyfriend kept tearing at each other, their relationship was hurting both. Ending it would also hurt both, but, in the long run, I thought they'd be happier breaking up, even though it would hurt both at the time. All I could do then was advise both. And so I did, to end it now, even if it is painful, before matters got worse. I doubt my advice actually had much of an effect in the end, but they broke up painfully and in tears. I cannot see the future. Yes, they MIGHT have been able to work something out. But based on their experience at the time, I concluded that there were higher chances of it being otherwise, that only pain awaited them. Now I think both are happier, each on a separate path. I guess my gamble worked, in the end, but I would not regret it if it hadn't. After all it IS in our power to help others... and if I helped create the mess, I'll be damned if I won't help clean it up. But that doesn't mean that my way of thinking is altogether wrong. Unlike you I realize the I am going to make mistakes, because I'm not perfect. but the fact that I can make mistakes, doesn't mean that my way of thinking is wrong. it means that I will need effort and endurance to clean up whatever mess I create. And I am willing to take responsibility; I won't run away. I am here.
Quote:
I don't know now if I should cry because of you and others that you can hurt many if you'll keep not caring, or if I should be happy for you and others that you don't see for what everything you should be responsible and that you don't feel despair as I do now.
Sadly, we care. But I choose not to suffer because I care. Suffering gets me nowhere, I don't NEED suffering and regret. Instead I try to be constructive and look to the future. If you want to cry, be my guest. I can offer you my shoulder to cry on. Even if you're crying needlessly.
KaRei wrote:
Evidence of curable homosexuality:
Gerhard van den Aardweg (Therapy of Homosexuality)
Doc. MUDr. Kurt Freund, CSc. (Homosexualita u muže [Homosexuality at man])
MUDr. Štěpán Rucki
international organization NARTH
Ah thanks.I looked into it (briefly, admittedly), and I have to say that I still don't really believe these people and theories have the whole picture straight. Yes, there is some scientific basis to it and, Yes, it is true that undergoing some sort of therapy is going to maybe change some individuals sexual orientation and help that person be happier.
But that won't always be the case. There are many criticisms against "gay treatments" and such, and I also think that it is worthwhile paying attention to them too. They won't always help a person, they will sometimes only make matters worse and bring anguish. Most importantly, the bases under which it operates (childhood traumas, for example) can be called into question and will not always apply to the same people. A homosexual can be raised in a loving home. He can be raised in one full of hate. You simply can't be absolute about it. Just like I am reading on the "pros" I want you to read on the "cons". Deal?
Besides, I think that there are valid alternatives to "gay treatments", because treatments are intrusive by nature. Self-discovery is for example, an alternative. And you know what's better about it? the fact that it is open ended. Through it a person might discover anythng that he is in fact gay or that he isn't. Therapies look for a particular result: make someone not gay. They stand on the preexisting assumption that homosexuality is not really possible for a person, but there is no proof to support that. You see, you conceive of homosexuality as a disease and there is *some* evidence to support it. But it is not conclusive. You can't say for sure that it is, like I can't say for sure that it isn't. I find the evidence to say that is is a disease insufficient, but I am willing to admit that there might be a change that I am wrong. I don't think I am wrong, but I recognize the possibility.
Quote:
The disorder. The fact that it isn't naturality, but disorder.
Homosexuals are sexualy atracted by same gendre, necrophils are sexualy atracted by dead bodies, zoophils are sexualy atracted by animals. All of these are disorder. And for me are all of these loathsome.
Ah, I see they are bad BECAUSE they are unnatural. Is that correct?
But if being unnatural is bad... what about plastic? Plastic is not found anywhere in nature it takes severe alteration of natural resources to produce plastic, along with many other toxic by-products and, what's worse, plastic isn't biodegradable. Plastic is unnatural too, therefore, is it evil?
What about medicine? Medicine is unnatural. It is natural for people to die of diseases, it is natural for premature babies to die because they aren't born fully developed. It is unnatural for them to be treated with artificial machines and medicines to save their lives; death is natural. So tell me. Is medicine evil?
People aren't born with clothes. There is no plant or animal that produces ready-made clothes, either. People have to go though a process to make clothes from plants or animals. But we are naturally born nude. Wouldn't the natural thing be to be naked? Aren't clothes unnatural? if unnatural things are evil, then clothes are evil. Let' suppose that clothes are part of the survival instinct for when it is cold, so you won't freeze to death. Then why isn't it bad to wear clothes in hot climates where no such risk exists?
I think that neither of these things are evil, yet they are all unnatural,and I think you might agree with me. Doesn't that mean, then, that because something is unnatural it isn't necessarily evil? doesn't that mean, therefore, that if homosexuality is evil, it isn't BECAUSE it is "unnatural"?
Quote:
Well, I know that it is more complicated and I was little bit exagerating when I was speaking just about the reproduction. Anyway I disagree with any sort of oral and anal sex, even if it is between man and woman, and I also disagree with hard vaginal sex. All of these has nothing to do with love. It is just plain sex, nothing more, although it is with beloved person. Your mind isn't set during these on the love to the person but to the enjoyment you have from the act. The only sex where love is taking place and where your mind is set on that person and not just on the enjoyment from sex is gentle sex. This is the only sexual act that I'm not finding as bad even if isn't only because of reproduction. (Note to the hard and gentle sex - I don't know how to translate it properly, so I used the most closest expressions.)
If it is just plain sex, I'm against even if you are heterosexual, because such thing is from my point of view bad.
And last few months I see also every sex before marriage as bad (in this case is bad also the gentle one).
Against sex between homosexuals I'm because the oral or anal sex isn't about love, but only plain sex.
Ah, I see. They are bad BECAUSE they only seek pleasure. So PLEASURE is bad?
Then you should stop eating food that you like and eat only food that is nutritious even if you hate it. Because pleasure is bad.
Watching anime gives me pleasure, it is just entertainment. It doesn't respond to a particular need that I have. Watching anime gives me only PLEASURE. so, is watching anime evil, since I only watch it for pleasure?
You are saying that sex for pleasure is bad because (obviously) it is only for pleasure. But pleasure itself isn't a bad thing, is it? doesn't that mean that if sex for pleasure is bad, it must then be bad for some other reason?
I'm going to exaggerate here:
Would you be willing to support some machine or treatment that prevented people from feeling sexual pleasure except when they have "soft" vaginal sex with a single person; the one that they love? That the moment they go 'hard" or switch to oral or anal sex it kicks in and prevents them from feeling any pleasure at all? Same for when they have sex with some other person they don't love, even if it is only 'soft". Do you approve this machine or disapprove of it?
If I understand your point correctly, then you shouldn't be opposed to it because it doesn't permit pleasure. But, as you noticed already, such machine would be unnatural. It is a dilemma: if you support it. You approve or, at least, don't disapprove of unnatural. If you disapprove of it, then you approve, or at least don't disapprove, of sex for pleasure. At the very least, one of the choices means that one evil is worse than the other in your opinion. Out of curiosity, which one is it?
Quote:
Then I'm against it because as a heterosexual I see an idea of having sex with same gendre as loathsome. (This sentence is here just for fullness, not to use it as an argument for or against, because it is personal feeling based on a taste and nothing what would have any weight in serious discussion.)
Sorry, but it does have an effect. And I'm not letting it slide because, if that sentence is true, then it is important. It is the key to the whole issue.
You see, I hate eggs. Their taste, their smell, I find them unpleasant and they make me sick with disgust. But, unlike you, leoxjm, the egg-hater, sees NOTHING wrong with people eating or even liking eggs, even though they (seriously) can make me nauseous.* You see, I can tolerate of someone eating eggs. i might not like it, but I think it is a good thing to be tolerant, even though i am an egg-hater. I don't discourage people from eating eggs; I don't encourage it either because of self-deference. but you see, we both find something loathsome and disgusting. Yet we have different attitudes about it. If I started to proclaim to people "YOU disgust me, because you LIKE eggs"... what would that make me?
Ok, that wasn't the best example, but here is another one: I am not white. If I started to loathe white skin SIMPLY because I am not white (just like you say you loathe homosexuality simply because you are not homosexual), what do you take that to mean?
You know what saying that something is loathsome just because YOU are different is? It is intolerance. It is imposition. It is bigotry. Am I wrong?
If your last sentence is true, then it pretty much contradicts everything you have said before. You don't find homosexuality objectionable because it is EVIL, or bad, or a disease. You find it objectionable because it is different than you.
Is that the case?
-------------------------------------------------------------
*For the record, eggs, in fact, do disgust me to the point of nausea and I am no egg-bigot. Everyone in my house likes eggs, except me. And I don't hate my family, or anyone, for it. _________________
the way you post your opinion, its more like your forcing others to accept your opinion....i dont think you realize that....lino?
They got my point? I don’t see that. They are repeating things again and again and this shows that they didn’t get my point exactly.
Leoxjm wrote:
I'm fairly sure that everyone here has taken your word "cause" to mean "spread".
See? If that’s true then that’s what make you people misunderstand what I mean and start repeating things. I didn’t mean "SPREAD" but "CAUSE" and in case other exchanged them then this isn’t my problem.
Sayoku wrote:
i need to draw you a picture or what?
Ooo can you repeat that again? Btw, are you good in drawing pictures?
It would be better if we talked about something else because discussing with you about homosexual is P O I N T L E S S
And it wont end, but unfortunately this thread is for homosexual.
Leoxjm wrote:
sex is not just about reproduction, or biology. As I said before, sex is not just that. Or do you disagree? If a husband enjoys having anal sex with his wife and neither of them has sex with someone else, are those people wrong?
I never said sex is only for reproduction. About your second question, if someone was hungry and ate human's flesh though there are food but he like the taste of human's flesh. Is he doing wrong? Yeah then the same for having anal sex instead of vaginal sex.
Quote:
...
I said that I HAVE searched, didn't I?
How do you feel when you repeat? I even did say that I studied and asked people (doctors, teachers, ..etc) or you see this doesn’t mean searching? Is searching mean open books or surf net to get information? I have my own way of searching and you have your own way. Also I didn’t told u to stand up and go search by yourself as I did.
Quote:
And nobody has questioned that... why bring it up?
It was related to the previous one which was about anal sex.
esin wrote:
And frankly how do you even dare say I don't care about people?
He said that in general (so you might or might not be included) as you did when you said" Hey might be really unfair to those of you that are against homosexuals but I think of all of you are the same as racists." Yet I didn’t said how dare you say that I'm the same as racists since I'm against homosexual, or did I?
don’t get angry from others while you do somehow the same to other. Even if you said "I think" because what you said is quite clearly directed to me.
Now about your question, why violence is used upon them, if you are talking about punishment that some countries do to them, then unfortunately I see they have the rights to apply their rules. Its like a man staying in a place where there is a war and don’t want to be hit or get hurt even if he's sitting in his own home. He put himself in danger so why asking for rights?
Quote:
To answer your question yes and I have a logic explenation and it's up to you if you belive in my reasoning or not.
.........
Well ok this isn’t a fact after all. As you have logic others have too and I think it would be better if you ask and know why they do they do that to them.
Quote:
I'm not saying we should accept anything but those that mean we should reject everyone that's diffrent?
Some people accept them and some not. As you can see, Leo, Spanky, Luna and many other members here are accepting them but if your asking everyone to accept it then this is impossible. _________________
Not all what you think is right is supposed to be right.
Last edited by trueline on Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 5630 Location: Inside food!
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject:
Its good to be home ^^
Congrats me guys a wisdom tooth is going to be extracted means days of pain and suffer will be coming too along side with it =____=
Ah I feel really sick to quote everyone. Oh well I'll try to make my point easy and nice. I see you people are repeating the same thing over and over again.
Eisen>>>I love to argue with you guys too ^^
I just hope that my sickness doesn’t get in my way. Oh and I edited my last post. I think I missed something especially in the first part.
First of all after reading some (NOT ALL) of the posts. I have to say people are going wild. Having bf/gf and enjoying the life to the fullest without having the ability to endure I think that's what made you go wild like that. One day you will use tools that I never heard about them nor imagine them. Now women is a real doll. I thought that love before marriage make women like a doll, but now I'm 100% sure she's doll now. If those couples (gay and lesbian) doesn’t match each other or one doesn’t gain anything from the other then their relationship is wrong.
Imagine with me something. If a country doesn’t have "insemination" I hope you know about this. I'm sure I got the wrong word ^^; . Well if gay and lesbian cant adopt children if they weren’t family or have an excuse of not being able to give birth. Just like in my country. Tell me what are they (gay and lesbian) are going to do? Stay together in the name of love till the end? I don’t think women doesn’t love to give birth, doesn’t love children. Which right they want? The right to marry? Let them. The right to adopt children? They already have womb let them use it and give as many children as they want. A child needs a mother and father. He needs what the majority have, a mother and a father. A child have many responsibilities and people shouldn’t throw babies to whomever wants them, weather they are gay or lesbian. They choose this relationship over normal relationship between a man and a woman. If they have rights then a child have rights too. Have you ever heard of a relationship build of love only?
If I said I want money while I'm sitting in my home doing nothing, will you give me? If not then I'll compare myself with those disable people, needy, beggars, people who are indeed in need of money. If your going to give them then give me. Will you give me? Or are you going to tell me to go work? What if I said I'm lazy, tired, don’t have time for that? No then the children are the same. If your not going to give birth though you have a womb and such things then its your problem because you have chosen this relationship which is incomplete and wrong.
Let me tell you about a story of one of my mother's friend. She was virgin and had a painful incident made her think of avenging. I wont say all the details. What's important is that she was targeting young boys, who are virgin as well. She was attracting them to have sex with them. She do the same thing each time she meats new one. Now she have AIDS and some of her targets as well. Now can you explain this to me. How did she and they get it? They are virgin and healthy.
eisen wrote:
doesn't God just want us to be happy?
Yeah He wants us to be happy. Enjoy the good things to the fullest. Be happy while not hurting yourself nor others.
If something is bad I don’t open Qur'an and if it says its bad without a reason I say its bad. Everything bad has a reason of it being bad. I'm not blind.
eisen wrote:
Though I'm somewhat surprised some since you seem to like yaoi so much. Anyway feel better and get well
Yaoi? O__o why are you surprised?
No I don’t like yaoi. Shounen-ai is my favorite ^^
A nice kawaii lovely relationship between two bishies ^^;;;
I admit that I once watched yaoi animes but it was disgusting.
Thanks for caring ^^
du5ky wrote:
You guys seems to have a fun debate going... I'm missing out. But damn I hate to read long paragraphs...
Awww I cant reach my point without making long paragraph. Though I want you to participate here. I'd like to see your point of view ^^
Bowsy>>>All I can say to you. Not all holes in human body are for sex. Study human's body.
Lino>>>Calm down a little, my dear lino. I guess you didn’t get experienced how to face lots of people against you. Ignore.
You said cause and I see people are understanding it differently. Let me make it easy and nice. The definition of the word "Cause" in dictionary:
A person, event, or thing that makes something happen.
To make something happen, especially something bad.
When you hold a knife and cut your hand, a wound will be caused and scar too.
Now don’t get angry. I'm using the same way your using.
lino wrote:
If someone said that he's in love with any animal and before taking any other step for this relation , all people will say this isn’t love, he is insane, abnormal,…etc and if he didn’t listen then they convince him that by saying this relation will end up with diseases, harming animal, blah blah blah
In siblings love, if someone loved his sister then people will say this isn’t love, he lost his mind, he turned this family love into that sexual love, this sin, forbidden love,...etc and that before this relation go far and have sex or what so ever, and people are going to convince him that this relationship will end up with diseases and so on. The same goes with the sisterxsister and brotherxbrother.
The beginning is wrong and it will remain wrong till the end. The results shows whether its good or bad.
Siblings love, animal human love, and homosexuality ended up with diseases and that’s why I compared them.
People says that love fall for anyone, does this mean that this love is right? one will say I loved (sexual love)my sister after i haven’t seen her for a long time. He is for sure wrong (my opinion) because not all who we fall for is right. Even after falling for the wrong person we still can change it. How? There are many ways and nothing called impossible in this situations otherwise no body would love again if he/she was rejected once.
I personally like what you said here.
lino wrote:
To prove that some people think there are things right if it was done by few people and wrong when it is done by majority. Jumping cliffs, playing with matches ..etc aren’t included because it could be change by laws. The word "things" referred to lie, killing, suicide, ..etc.
I like this one too.
Kids no one is born gay nor lesbian. I'm saying this for the last time. He may born less hormones, but not as a gay or lesbian. And one more thing BALANCE between enjoyment and your purpose of life. Though some of you asked "what is our purpose of life?" the answer is within you. You go and search for the answer. You have legs you can walk, eyes you can read, a tongue you can speak and ears you can hear. This is your life and you have your own way to search and know the answer. But please don’t think you are living for enjoyment nor to have fun or be happy till death. This is called HEAVEN. We are living in an incomplete world. I never said don’t be happy nor don’t enjoy but balance between them. To me after reading this from you people I don’t see your balancing. You want sex in many different ways even if its bad or wrong and give excuses as one's taste. We are all one, a human being, and we have different taste but not like that. Your using tools to enjoy? What else will you do?
AA wrote:
And I'm sure those women were virgins.
leo wrote:
If all are healthy of course non will get AIDS.
Virgin? Healthy? No some of them aren’t virgin. What do you mean healthy? You mean they don’t have AIDS?
AA wrote:
Human rights isn't just one rights. I won't say much about women's rights in the workforce in Saudi Arabia. But I will say Saudi Arabia isn't all too good with human rights in general. Your country has been known for oppression of political and religious minorities, censorship over the internet (I give praise to Saudi Arabia for admitting it, unlike China and N.Korea), torture of prisoners, etc. Women don't have the same equal stance as men in court.
Because this isn’t the main topic here. I will pm you about this matter. I cant concentrate talking about human rights and about homosexuality.
KaRei wrote:
but as I see most of people read it before I did it
Tee hee hee ^^
I'm fast saving web pages-su.
eisen wrote:
who are you to say they don't support each other or try everything in their power to be there for one another mentally as support and sacrifice themselfs for their partners?
Oh your Almanac. You know that their relationship is based on love. They love each other why not? They aren’t doing this to get people's attraction? They aren’t satisfying their desire only? Tell me how you knew that? I cant know what they are thinking nor their real intention nor I say all of them doing this for the same reason. Some of them love and other don’t.
Let me ask you something eisen. Is all love relationship RIGHT?
Spanky>>>If you don’t like it then ignore our posts or don’t post. You have the right we're not forcing you to post here.
leo wrote:
They are rights. You might be happy living without them, and that is fine. But simply showing your face to a person isn't a wrongful act, just as covering it isn't a wrongful act either. I don't understand why an act that is not wrongful should be disallowed, but I'll leave it at that because that isn't what we're talking about.
Maybe I should pm you too. I don’t want to skip the main topic and discuss other matters ^^
I guess I'm really living in another country. I saw many gay and lesbian telling and encouraging other to imitate them. I don’t know about your country so I'm not going to say anything more about this matter.
You may hear many strange things in my country. We're not perfect.
leo wrote:
because, for some reason they cannot control, they are attracted to the same sex
You mean when they see a woman naked they don’t feel attracted?
leo wrote:
You see, by telling someone I'd ok to be who you are
You mean encourage them to be what they want weather its good or bad. Ah ok.
leo wrote:
I don't think you or I should interfere
Ah everyone for himself.
leo wrote:
If someone were to come to you and say "I think I'm gay" you should be ready to accept the fact that that person may, in fact, be gay; no matter what you say or do about it
No I wont be ready to accept the fact. This isn’t a fact. No one becomes gay or lesbian unless something encourages them. Let me say something. If a boy 12 years old came to you and say that he wants to have a gf what will you do? Allow him? When I say gf I mean gf not just a friend nor close female friend. Now tell me what are the reasons that made him think of this in this early age? What affected him?
I don’t sit and watch them having wrong relationship and encourage them. I feel lucky having to be able to talk and feel for gays and lesbians. I have to know the reasons why he/she wants to be gay or lesbian. I don’t think love can be the only reason, not always.
leo wrote:
But either way it is not my problem
Ah everyone for himself.
leo wrote:
but it has nothing to do with me
Everyone for himself.
leo wrote:
Then you did misunderstand. Because that is not what I said. I already replied to that in my previous post.
No I didn’t. Sorry but I already quote everything where I saw that. I may be bothersome I am. I tried this with someone and I got really a painful replay. The wound is still open ^^ . That's why I'm apologizing. Its to make you see what I get from your posts.
leo wrote:
AH, so you're saying that a woman's purpose in life is to have children because they have wombs, right?
Did I say this? No I didn’t. One of women's purpose in life is to have children. Children and money is the life's most enjoyment things. What I wanted to tell you that IF I was born lesbian God should've take out my womb so that we can make a good couple. When you say "he/she born gay or lesbian" means that he/she is destined to be gay or lesbian. Being born with less hormone doesn’t mean your gay or lesbian. There are many people who are born with less hormone and yet they marry a woman and bring children. But to say they have less hormone so they are gay is wrong.
leo wrote:
Hell, I don't know if people even HAVE a purpose in life
If you don’t have a purpose in life your astray. Don’t they say make a goal in your life to continue living. If someone don’t have then boredom and suicidal are their solution, right?
leo wrote:
And I swear that it won't Your "proof" is just as strong as mine and we're just butting heads for no reason here. Let's leave it at that.
My predict is that in ancient they didn’t expect people to be gay and lesbian and it happened, they didn’t expect that children one day will make their mothers as their servants and it happened, they didn’t expect that one day the people will tell the rapist to hide behind a wall and rape a woman and it happened, they didn’t expect that the technology will become like this and it became, ….etc. Now I think they didn’t expect that one day twincest will happen while it will. What makes you sure that it wont happen?
du5ky wrote:
Why joo include me?
Who's "joo"? leoxjim?
du5ky wrote:
I just wanna ask... do you think anal sex between a man and a women is wrong?
Yes. Why? because of the same thing gay was wrong.
leo wrote:
what is wrong with a homosexual couple having sex because of love? Or just for pleasure?
If they don’t gain anything then its wrong. If they are hurting themselves then its wrong.
Genryou>>>Ah your so sweet when you call her lino ^^
Awww you lil *pinches cheeks*
to lino:
Bodai gesai mat hoga lino
LuNa>>>What makes you sure?
Now I reached my limit. Sorry if I didn’t replay to everyone. I cant ^^;
I'll try to see again if I missed something or not.
Something else. I want to replay only to leoxjim and AA so I can concentrate. Sorry but I cant replay to everyone. And as for how homosexuality hurt themselves. Here:
Health damage:
It has been proved without a doubt that many of the health and medical damages who perpetrators homosexuality, which health and medical scientist in many countries of the world proved that. These damages are:
-Fibroid reproductive; which is spread among homosexuals in a big way. This shows the disease spreading in a form of ulcers in genital particularly the penis and anus.
-Evident inflation in the neighboring lymph glands which makes pus and appear and small cysts exit and quickly explode consists pockets and usually accompanied by high temperature, nausea, pain in arthritis and severe headaches.
-A large swelling in the external genitalia and usually this swelling occurs as a result of blocking lymph vessels because of chronic inflammation that afflicted.
-Anal often infected and it causes severe inflammation leads to pus secretion and many ulcers. In the end, a strong narrow happens in anus resultant an increase in pus secretions with bloody hemorrhaging which causes full blockage.
-Catch tumors in the genitals especially cancers.
-Transfer venereal and serious sexual diseases because of homosexuality.
-Modern science has proved that there is a strong relationship between homosexuality and epidemic hepatitis disease.
-Modern science has also proved that sodomy is the main reason for the acquired immune deficiency disease (AIDS).
-Sodomy cause a major mind imbalance, disquietude in thinking, strange stasis in concept and strong weakness in the will/act.
-Sodomy causes weakness in psychological and neurological strength.
-Early death because of those serious diseases.
I brought this from my news site which is:
http://saaid.net/Doat/yahia/61.htm
I know its Arabic. I translated it so you might find it not good ^^; _________________ "Blogger"
Lino>>>Calm down a little, my dear lino. I guess you didn’t get experienced how to face lots of people against you. Ignore.
You said cause and I see people are understanding it differently. Let me make it easy and nice. The definition of the word "Cause" in dictionary:
A person, event, or thing that makes something happen.
To make something happen, especially something bad.
When you hold a knife and cut your hand, a wound will be caused and scar too.
Now don’t get angry. I'm using the same way your using.
I am calmed down. Myabe trying to make my posts clear made me sounds nervious, but im not. Actually i didnt say vaginal sex doesnt transfer aids or any diseases but they were saying something and im repeating. I even felt that they're playing dumb to confuse me, but hope this is my imagination only.
Quote:
Bodai gesai mat hoga lino
-_______- I'm not.
[about ur last part]
So im not the only one who said it have diseases. If some countries forbidden this relationship according to its diseases then i wont blame them.
Quote:
If those couples (gay and lesbian) doesn’t match each other or one doesn’t gain anything from the other then their relationship is wrong.
thats how i see them but i dont know in what way people see them as couples. If one have everything as the other then they're not couple. friend, brother, or anything but not a couple. women are everywhere yet they choose someone as himself. Love isnt an excuse.
Kari> i didnt heard it (that vaginal sex causes/ bring/creat or i dunno to make them understand)but i do believe. But nevermind what they said b/c i think they still didnt get it ( hopefully not) and i need to bring someone to translate what i said to them. _________________
Not all what you think is right is supposed to be right.
Joined: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 5630 Location: Inside food!
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject:
Ah you mean "Nervous" dont worry everyone do mistakes.
Dunno about you. I didnt read all your posts but yeah you seem angry and forcing people to understand something they dont want. If they dont then ignore.
There isnt any relatonship that I say wrong without having reasons for it being wrong or bad.
I see they told you that your "living under a rock". I guess I am too living under the same rock with you ^^
Hey not all of them are having love as an excuse. Some have something else other than love.
Anyway lets not argue a lot. I dont want this thread to be locked. _________________ "Blogger"
Forgive me... I think I'm gonna start "shooting" you guys hard.
jas wrote:
i'm not against compare and contrasts, i'm sick of something people
compare in a way that's saying "SEE THIS IS WRONG, SO THAT IS TOO"
some are credible, some are not... leo and eisen are proving wrong those that aren't credible.
leo wrote:
I don't, but I know you weren't asking me.
well... that's actually food for thought.
trueline wrote:
But in the end they don’t eat human flesh as some people do and find it tasty.
Well... you actually got me thinking that why cannibalism is wrong.
Ok, so I think that the only thing a person left behind after they're dead is their corpse and possibly thier faces if it still haven rot. Taking away their very last possession is cruel to them, therefore wrong.
Therefore, I dun think it would be appropriate to compare cannibalism=wrong to homo=wrong....
Angel wrote:
Quote:
Because our purpose in this life is not for joy. Now I have question for you both [AA/leo] in return why having anal sex? Is vaginal sex not enough? I know it’s a shameless question still I wanna know.
If life does not have joy then we are in misery.
I shall help give a more accuarate answer.
Humans like to experience new things.
trueline wrote:
other view them as abnormal, unnatural or whatever.
I believe people are still opening up. You see in ancient china when women reveal their shoulders or legs, they are called shamless and get tossed into pig cages and stuff. Ok maybe not so bad, but nowadays you see Spagetti straps and miniskirts in China everywhere. Just like people in ancient China are not ready to accept revealing clothes, people nowdays are not ready to accept homos.
Actually, about same gender love, sibling love, animal-human love, I think as long both parties are willing it ok. Well, of course an anime can't say "yes", which makes them unwilling party. Sibling love... they must think about defunct children.
Karei wrote:
I was like you in this and it isn't too long ago. I was also saying that why should I care if somebody decided to do something and that he isn't hurting anybody. This my stand resulted that I hurted somebody else.
You wanna share? Frankly, if it would hurt someone in the end, then it might be wrong to ignore, unless it involve the participater's rights.
Karei wrote:
I don't know now if I should cry because of you and others that you can hurt many if you'll keep not caring, or if I should be happy for you and others that you don't see for what everything you should be responsible and that you don't feel despair as I do now.
You mean homosexuality actually hurts other people? Is it just because people are not ready to accept it?
eisen wrote:
Do you think it's ok for people to be chased, harressed, raped , beat up and killed for being who they are? And answer why it was no one interfered with the guy that got beat up.
If they started doing it first... Yes. But I dunno who would actually have a trait to chase, harrass and rape other people as part of their personality.
some wrote:
Well if gay and lesbian cant adopt children if they weren’t family or have an excuse of not being able to give birth. Just like in my country. Tell me what are they (gay and lesbian) are going to do? Stay together in the name of love till the end? I don’t think women doesn’t love to give birth, doesn’t love children.
I guess it's just that your country makes it difficult for lesbians to live in... Maybe they should fight for their right or something. After all, a government is a leader amongst a group of people, if the group doesn't accept these members, they can just leave. With a cost of course, thats the difference between a normal group and a country.
some wrote:
Let me tell you about a story of one of my mother's friend. She was virgin and had a painful incident made her think of avenging. I wont say all the details. What's important is that she was targeting young boys, who are virgin as well. She was attracting them to have sex with them. She do the same thing each time she meats new one. Now she have AIDS and some of her targets as well. Now can you explain this to me. How did she and they get it? They are virgin and healthy.
Impossible... She definetely had contact with a AIDS carrier. I'll bet anything.
some wrote:
Though I want you to participate here. I'd like to see your point of view
Thanks.. though I've already made my point ^^ in short paragraphs too... The replys that follows are essays which makes me OMG...
some wrote:
Not all holes in human body are for sex
ROFL
some wrote:
I saw many gay and lesbian telling and encouraging other to imitate them.
I must say that this isn't very correct, but not morally. But taking my stand in this discussion, I'll say that there is nothing wrong with that.
some wrote:
No one becomes gay or lesbian unless something encourages them.
Not really. Influence does affects, but a boy may have feelings for another guy naturally without peers doing so. It's natural. Most guys are actually 50% bi... or 25% gay... If you want to talk about genes, they probably had a little more of this, a little less of that, making them "more gay" than the other guy....
some wrote:
Who's "joo"? leoxjim?
ya... nthing really LOL jim
On another note... I must say that AIDS or any other STDs are pretty much out of discussion here.
I dun care you put which rod in which hole, but AIDS it transmitted through human fluids and not because of putting a wrong plug in a wrong socket. Even if 200 gays randomly screw each other everyday, but as long as NONE of them have AIDS and they DO NOT screw with other people, NONE of them will EVER get AIDS. Lets bring the mutating viruses out of topic here.
Joined: Jan 02, 2007 Posts: 683 Location: Czech Republic
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject:
From one point of view wheather people have sex (which sex they have or with whom they have) has nothing to do with me. On the other side if I see anything as not right I should try to help those people realize that they aren't doing right thing and tell them what is right and how to reach the right way.
With the suicide I didn't mean that it is same or similar as homosexuality. The point was that I see a lot of people not caring when they have nothing to do with that thing. This is going to be a serious problem because people already don't care even if a group of three guys is obviously trying to get a young women away from a public and rape her (although she was calling for help, nobody from people that was around helped her - this happened about a year ago). I don't say that I'm different and that I would be the only one that would do something. I'm also allowing the possibility that I wouldn't care too. In a same way I don't say that it would be exactly YOU who wouldn't care. One thing is speaking about something, another is doing it that way when the situation really comes. My opinion in this is anyway that when people don't care even about lesser things, they would get used to not care and they wouldn't sometimes see that now, after long time when nothing important was happening, is the right time to do something. People that care even about so called pitty little things about which is said that they have nothing to do with them, are in my oppinion more used to care about things and already because they care about everything they have, in my opinion, higher chance to not overlook something important. It surely isn't a rule that works always, but I think that the chance of do or don't do would be effected by this aspect rapidly.
I apologize to all people that feel touched by my last post from where it may look like I'm pointing on them as exactly they don't care at all. I don't know exactly you so I don't blame exactly you. I was generalizing on a facts I was able to see from surroundings and I didn't mean any specific person. Everybody should think about that example and about what I said and admit by himself weather he is like that or not. I was thinking about myself in that or similar cases and I found a lot of cases where I admited that I would be probably one of those that wouldn't care. I want to change thus I'm caring more and more and about so called pitty things that are said that has nothing to do with me to learn myself to care more and to be able with not lying to myself that I would in all important cases do something. Whether you'll find yourself that you're the one that would care or not is only on you because you know yourself the best.
The right to tell somebody that he is doing something wrong is from persuasion that when is something wrong on what he do, you should tell him that it's wrong and tell him what is right. Anyway I never said that any love is wrong. This persuasion isn't just my, but also of millions other people.
I don't think that people should be chased, (can't find harressed in dictionary what it means) raped, beat up or killed for being who they are. I don't think that it is ok and I never supported such view. I support a way which is about speaking with them, helping them realize and helping them to change. Not beat them.
Now it's a question wheather in the example of the boy wearing clothes of a girl was the not care stand after realization of that a fact that it's a boy and he should fight his fight by himself and not a weaker girl that would need help, or if it was a careless stand because of the difference of the boy in girls clothes. If it was because he was a stronger boy and not a weaker girl, it was same careless stand as I was describing in the example with man that want suicide. If it was because of difference of the boy, then it was a discrimination.
For me are both stands bad. Maybe some people would say that if it was because that he was a stronger boy, he should really fight his fight by himself.
Btw. if I remember properly, in the example wasn't said reason why the first boy was beating the second boy. And maybe that when the first boy said that it is a boy and not a girl, he only ment that it is a boy that can fight the fight by himself and not a weaker girl that would need protection.
About curability of homosexuality are two camps, both of them large enought, one that see homosexuality as curable disorder, one as a normal thing that doesn't need to be cured. Both of camps has enough arguments to support their stand and none of these camps refute arguments of the other side that it would make this or that side more right than the other.
Some pleasure can became bad when it is going to be something like drug. When you are for example playing too much on PC and you are almost dependent on it, then, although it's a pleasure, it's bad. When you would watch anime most the time that it will become almost your drug, then it is bad although it's a pleasure.
On these examples is bad that 1) you're damaging your eyes and 2) you should do aso something else and not only sit there (as I do right now ). Sex for pleasure has a tendency to become as a drug for people. You want it often, and more. As is said, with food is growing apetite. This is a potencial danger because your partner could become less attractive for you (the sex would become something ordinary) and in a need to feel it as before some people begin to search for somebody else. And here we're comming to AIDS, again.
Note: I used the word "potential", not "absolute", when I spoke about the danger.
About naturality and unnaturality of homosexuality, leoxjm took it to such extreme that even if somebody would born with three hands that if it wouldn't be harmful to that person, it would be natural and doctors shouldn't have the right to take the third hand away.
It's true that I see sex between homosexuals as loathsome. But I disagree that it is a clue to everything. I admit at it has it's role in the case, but not just that. Same as I see sex between homosexuals loathsome I see kissing between them loathsome as well. But only sex between them I see as bad.
And because leoxjm few times repeated question WHY I see homosexuality as bad, I'll summarize whole case where I'll answer him as well:
- I don't see love between homosexuals as bad
- I see sex between homosexuals as bad because that way of sex is missing love and is just for pleasure, thus bringing up a possibility of cuckoldry and deceases
- I see every person able love any other person regardless the gendre, the only limit is sexual orientation that is preventing us from trying to find partner from same (if hetero) or opposite (if homo) gendre.
- I see homosexuality curable (because of the point above) and I support an oppinion that if the barrier of sexual orientation is changed or removed, the homosexual is able love opposite gendre partner with true love
- I'm against beating or killing homosexuals.
PS: It's late and I went as far as leoxjm's post was with my answers. I don't have now power to read through Lino's, Somey's and Du5k's posts, I'll do it later. Sorry people. _________________
Last edited by KaRei on Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
See? If that’s true then that’s what make you people misunderstand what I mean and start repeating things. I didn’t mean "SPREAD" but "CAUSE" and in case other exchanged them then this isn’t my problem.
Ah.
Well, then, you're right.
Vaginal sex doesnt cause AIDS.
But Anal sex doesn't cause AIDS.
Oral sex doesn't cause AIDS.
A virus causes AIDS.
Just like that. Didn't you read what I wrote?
Quote:
Ooo can you repeat that again? Btw, are you good in drawing pictures?
It would be better if we talked about something else because discussing with you about homosexual is P O I N T L E S S
And it wont end, but unfortunately this thread is for homosexual.
Hahahaha... oh, man, that made me laugh...
Sayoku is saying that you seem to have a hard time understaning words, she was suggesting that it might be a better idea to explain stuff to you with pictures.
Quote:
Leoxjm wrote:
sex is not just about reproduction, or biology. As I said before, sex is not just that. Or do you disagree? If a husband enjoys having anal sex with his wife and neither of them has sex with someone else, are those people wrong?
I never said sex is only for reproduction. About your second question, if someone was hungry and ate human's flesh though there are food but he like the taste of human's flesh. Is he doing wrong? Yeah then the same for having anal sex instead of vaginal sex.
I see a key difference:
You'll likely have to kill a person to eat a person.
I'll come up with a scenario where there is no killing though: A person's dying wish is to be eaten by cannibals.
Do I object to cannibals eating this person?
No.
This person wanted to be eaten, this person agreed to it, this person wasn't killed for it. I would not eat the person (yuck!), but if someone wants to, well, go for it. What's wrong with it? Nothing, as far as I can see. Nobody's will is being violated, human flesh isn't poisonous so nobody will die or get sick. I respect their decision of eating each other, just like they should respect mine of not appreciating their meal and just eat it someplace else and not parading it around me or others. Nobody wants to eat him because they think that people shouldn't be eaten? Well, that's fine too. let's just bury the fellow and call it a day. Too bad that his dying wish isn't granted but I also think it is a mistake to put the dead before the living.
So, you say that it is the same for anal sex? If both people want it, I still don't see what is wrong with it either. Privacy is for them alone. If two people go around proclaiming that they like anal sex I'd tell them to shut up. Not because they like anal sex, but because neither I nor others have the intention or interest to hear about their privacy. And if someone wants to talk to them about it, then go talk about it on some other place where they don't inconvenience people. Respect and be respected, live and let live.
Quote:
How do you feel when you repeat? I even did say that I studied and asked people (doctors, teachers, ..etc) or you see this doesn’t mean searching? Is searching mean open books or surf net to get information? I have my own way of searching and you have your own way. Also I didn’t told u to stand up and go search by yourself as I did.
Well it just turns out that I have done what you have, and more. I'm just saying to do the "and more". You don;t have to if you don;t want to... but then you're just being stubborn.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I still see that right remain right whether it is done in few or all and wrong remain wrong whether it is done in few or all.
And nobody has questioned that... why bring it up?
It was related to the previous one which was about anal sex.
How does THAT have ANYTHING to do with anal sex?
Quote:
Its like a man staying in a place where there is a war and don’t want to be hit or get hurt even if he's sitting in his own home. He put himself in danger so why asking for rights?
Do have any idea what the hell you are SAYING?
Are you saying that people don't have the right not to be hurt? It is a fact that there is people who hate muslims in the world. Would you say that if one of those people killed your friends for it you'd say "well, there are people who hate muslims, my friends didn't have the right to be left alone by them".
People living in war zones don't always have the chance to run away. it may be because they are scared, because they have nowhere to run, because they think that everything will be over soon. Because, for one reason or another THEY CAN'T CHANGE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES.
Everyone, and I mean, everyone has the right to live. by doing certain things they forfeit it, yes, but by doing some others they don't. I think that staying at home while there is a war going on doesn't forfeit your right to live. Being a Muslim doesn't forfeit your right to live. Or are you telling me that you'd be happy if your friends rejected God just to live another day?
Quote:
Some people accept them and some not. As you can see, Leo, Spanky, Luna and many other members here are accepting them but if your asking everyone to accept it then this is impossible.
You and I are different, trueline. You are a woman, I am a man. You live in one place, I live in another. You have a religion, I do not. We are different.
You are a person, you have feelings, you can laugh and you can cry. You need to eat to survive. you have thoughts and ideas. You have a future. And you know what? So do I.
You see, it is a fact that you and I are different. It is a fact that you and I are the same. But I prefer to appreciate you for how you are the same as I am, than hate you for being different. There are even some differences that I can admire you for. For example, tha ability to give birth. I don't want to give birth myself, but I think it is a beautiful thing to do and I am glad that you will, someday, be able to do it. Everyone in the world is the same, and everyone in the world is different.
Now, please tell me: Should i appreciate you because we are the same? Or should i hate you because we are different?
I am not full of love for everyone. I am not able to accept every single way of thought or mentality, or way to live. I think so because some are hurtful and damaging, some more than others. And that is what I try to change... But, even if the differences between me and a person are too different to be bridged by my rationality, I believe that others deserve my respect to some level because, to some level, we are the same.
ultimasome wrote:
Its good to be home ^^
Congrats me guys a wisdom tooth is going to be extracted means days of pain and suffer will be coming too along side with it =____=
Get well soon!
Quote:
Yeah He wants us to be happy. Enjoy the good things to the fullest. Be happy while not hurting yourself nor others.
That is what I think as well!
Quote:
If something is bad I don’t open Qur'an and if it says its bad without a reason I say its bad. Everything bad has a reason of it being bad. I'm not blind.
Well, here is a difference between us. I don't have the Qur'an, so let's say i open the Bible instead, and it says "something is bad." I don't like to stop there, though. I think "well, why does it say it is bad?" I may arrive at a conclusion and think, "ah, it is bad because..." Or think "well, it is bad because of X, but X isn't bad. so maybe this isn't a bad thing". Or "I can't figure out why it is bad... there is a chance that this isn't a bad thing" (note: not bad doesn't mean "good"). I'm pretty sure that the Qur'an doesn't discourage people from looking for the truth beyond what it says.
Quote:
Kids no one is born gay nor lesbian.
Yes there are. I know at least one. So "some people" are born gay or lesbian is more factually accurate, which is what I've been saying all along.
But let's suppose I take your argument at face value. I'm willing to believe you. Show me your evidence.
Quote:
You want sex in many different ways even if its bad or wrong and give excuses as one's taste.
So far I have yet to see one credible argument saying why some sex is wrong beyond what I have already said is wrong. Wrong things are wrong for a reason, right? What is the reason, then?
Quote:
Your using tools to enjoy? What else will you do?
I'll eat the food that I like (gluttony). I'll be angry when someone hurts my loved ones (wrath). I'll sit around and watch anime when I don't have to work (sloth). I'll be happy when I teach something to a person (pride). I'll try to get a good job instead of a crappy one (greed). I'll work to bring the world one step closer to heaven (envy).
Everything is a sin, Yet I'll do it, because I think that, even if they can be considered a sin, they don't hurt anyone. Because I think there is nothing wrong with doing any of them.
Quote:
What do you mean healthy? You mean they don’t have AIDS?
yes.
Quote:
I saw many gay and lesbian telling and encouraging other to imitate them. I don’t know about your country so I'm not going to say anything more about this matter.
Ah. Well then, if these people were going on a campaign saying "Become gay", these people are being stupid and narrow-minded. Because people have the right NOT to be gay and to live heterosexual lives without partaking in homosexual behavior.
I just want to point out that there is a difference between saying "Become gay" and saying "If you're gay, accept it". They are different things. I support the second, but I reject the first.
Quote:
You mean when they see a woman naked they don’t feel attracted?
For some people it is like that, yes. For others, if they see a naked man and a naked woman, they might find the naked man more attractive.
Quote:
You mean encourage them to be what they want weather its good or bad. Ah ok.
...
I'm really wondering if you understand what I'm saying.
Let's supose that a person comes and tells me "man, I really feel happy when I'm killing people with a chainsaw". Do you think I'll tell this person. "good for you, here is some oil for the chainsaw"?
No. I think that his person needs help or (or go to jail) because killing people with a chainsaw is bad. Killing other people is bad, whether it is with a chainsaw or with a gun or wit a club. those are details. You see, I AM discriminating between good or bad. The reason why I think homosexual people should accept themselves is because I don't see homosexuality as a bad thing. NONE of you has proven to me that homosexuality is bad. All that you people keep spouting is that Iit is bad because it is unnatural" which it isn't. "because it is a disease", which YOU can't say for sure and even if it were true then people with the flu are bad, because the flu is a disease too."Because it goes against reproduction" which means that sterile people are bad, which means that abstinence is bad; because they too go against reproduction.
If homosexuality is bad, wrong, or evil then the reason must be somewhere else.
Quote:
Ah everyone for himself.
I wonder how you get that from what i wrote. I already wrote that I do not agree with "everyone for himself", and why. I need you to explain this to me. what does everyone for himself mean to you? because I think we might have different definitions. I really don't think that "people should be allowed to make their own choices as long as they don't hurt themselves or others"="everyone for himself" Do you?
Quote:
No one becomes gay or lesbian unless something encourages them.
Really? if they are being encouraged, then why is it such a big deal to "come out of the closet"? Why do so many homosexuals have a tough time admitting their homosexuality to themselves and others if they are being "encouraged"?
Quote:
Let me say something. If a boy 12 years old came to you and say that he wants to have a gf what will you do? Allow him? When I say gf I mean gf not just a friend nor close female friend. Now tell me what are the reasons that made him think of this in this early age? What affected him?
Here, let's go nuts. Let's say that the kid is my son, that gives me moral responsibility for his welfare and I can't wash my hands clean off it.
Anyway, would I allow it? YES.
What affected him? his heterosexuality, for one. What affected him? the fact that it is permissible for a person to love another. I'll allow it because of the fact that it will be a valuable experience for him to learn about love and living close to other people, and sharing a deeper bond with another person. Because he'll learn to care for other people and that he will be responsible for that person's feelings as well, for some of her welfare. This will most likely won't be his girlfriend for eternity or become his wife. But, you know what? it might teach him something that will be good for when he meets another girlfriend, or for when he gets married. And if I see that the relationship is somehow harming them, I will move on to stop it. But either way, it is a lesson learned.
Will I allow them to have sex? No, I don't think so. they might not be ready for it, it might be a mistake to do it and I'll do everything in my power to prevent them from making that mistake. This might be a passing infatuation, and they might regret having sex over it. I don't want the kids to regret. But if they want to kiss, hold hands, cuddle, hug and be together a lot, I think that it is ok and I'll allow it.
Now, let's not be absolute about this. Admittedly there is a chance that I won't allow such a relationship. For example, if his "girlfriend" is an 8 year old who has no real idea of what is going on. If his girlfriend is a 20 year old who might abuse him. If the family of the "girlfriend" is strange and something bad might happen to him because of them. But, you know. I am proud to say that I would fight to protect my child from any harm that might come to him.
Quote:
I don’t sit and watch them having wrong relationship and encourage them.
And you might have your reasons for doing so. I wonder, what are they?
Quote:
I feel lucky having to be able to talk and feel for gays and lesbians. I have to know the reasons why he/she wants to be gay or lesbian. I don’t think love can be the only reason, not always.
Then you admit that sometimes love might be the reason? because that is what I have been saying all along.
Quote:
Everyone for himself.
I'm really wondering if you can understand what I'm saying. The FACT that something is NOT my problem doesn't mean "everyone for himself" If I say that the flavor of ice cream that you want to eat is not my problem, am I saying "everyone for himself"?
Some wrote:
I think you don’t know the word "together" truly means. People are only helping themselves and saying "everyone is for himself". That's what I got from your posts.
I wrote:
What? Well sweetheart, you misunderstood because I NEVER said such a thing. That is why I keep bringing up law and social order. Because people CAN'T live in a "everyone is for himself" world. But there are moments and instances when a person can be self-determined and decide what to do and how to live, as long as it fits within the larger order. And such order is not broken by homosexuality.
Some wrote:
No I didn’t misunderstood you. This is what I got from reading all your posts.
I wrote:
Then you did misunderstand. Because that is not what I said. I already replied to that in my previous post.
Some wrote:
No I didn’t. Sorry but I already quote everything where I saw that. I may be bothersome I am. I tried this with someone and I got really a painful replay. The wound is still open ^^ . That's why I'm apologizing. Its to make you see what I get from your posts.
Then reading comprehension isn't your forte. I guess I'll spell it out for you.
Why I don't think "everyone for himself"
Because I take "everyone for himself" to mean ignoring the others and trampling over other people, their happiness, and their feelings if it measn that you are happy doing it or as a result of it. I, however, think that people shouldn't suffer for others, or that they shouldn't suffer for themselves. Suffering and pain are inevitable, but I believe that they can be minimized. Why would I hit myself with a hammer if I can simply not do it?
Just like that, I think that we can be happy and not harm others, or at least try. I want to eat chocolate; it makes me happy. now, I could take the chocolate from a child, but I think it is wrong to do it because it makes him suffer. I could steal it from a supermarket, but I think that it is wrong to steal to simply satisfy my pleasure. I could use my hard-earned money to buy one; after all I work to get the things that I want. Therefore, I think that it is morally acceptable to buy my own chocolate and eat it.
In order to know what is wrong and hurts or damages others, we have the law. The law tries to bring order, say what we can or cannot do. But the law NEEDS a cause behind it; the law should not be completely arbitrary. A law cannot ban, say hopping on one leg. Because hopping on one leg doesn't hurt anyone. Hopping on one leg while performing brain surgery might kill the patient, but that isn't one-leg hopping's fault. It is medical malpractice because there is a time and a place for everything. just like there is a time and a place for one leg hopping, or eating chocolate, there is a time and a place for sexual (or homosexual) behavior: one person's intimacy and privacy.
How does that apply to homosexuality
Now, I think that the same working principle can be applied to other things, including homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't hurt a person and doesn't (or shouldn't) hurt others around that person. At least, I fail to see why it does. If it makes a person happy (or at least, not unhappy) to think "I am homosexual" "I will engage in homosexual acts with my willing partner in our intimacy because it makes us both happy" then I will not object. If he says ""I will engage in homosexual acts with my willing partner in our intimacy because it makes us both happy, but behind my wife's back because I am cheating on her" I disapprove. Because He is cheating on his wife. he is going to make her suffer, and he does not have that right. A married ma should respect his wife, and he is failing to do so. But that is not because he is homosexual; it is because he is sleeping around, and sleeping around behind his wife's back is wrong. If he says "I will engage in homosexual acts with my willing partner in our intimacy because it makes us both happy, and my wife approves of this" I will think It is ok. because if the wife approves and is not being hurt, then it is not bad either. It isn;t affecting her, it isn;t affecting me. You might disapprove because it still goes against the sanctity of marriage and if that is so I more or lessa gree with you, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality. it is about the sanctity of marriage.
I don't know if marriage laws explicitly forbid sex outside of it, bit let's suppose that they do. In that case, the person is breaking the law, a law that he willingly decided to abide to by getting married. And if his wife says "well this is a crime because you're breaking the law adn I'm telling the cops", it is her right to do so. The law is here to protect us from harm, but id she isn't being harmed, then there is no practical need for her to enforce the law. She may do so if she so wills, that is her right, but if that means she is hurting someone (her husband) because of something that doesn't harm her and she doesn't care about, I also find that objectionable. Because she is acting just for herself.
The law isn't perfect. But I think it provides us with an acceptable framework in which we can live and not harm each other.
Does that mean that I am saying "everyone for himself"? No, not as far as I can see.
Quote:
What I wanted to tell you that IF I was born lesbian God should've take out my womb so that we can make a good couple.
All women have wombs. It is fact and reality. So you are saying that NO women could possibly be a lesbian because all women have wombs? Are you saying that the only women who can be lesbians are those whose wombs are not usable to have children?
The fact that you can have children doesn't mean that you HAVE to have them. It doesn't even mean that you should have them. All it means is that you can have them if you so wish. That is all it means.
You didn't say that it is a woman's purpose in life to have children because of their womb. Then you say that it IS a woman's purpose in life to have children; but not because of their womb. Then, why is a woman's purpose in life to have children? For the hell of it? Are you saying, then, that a woman who doesn't want to have children has no purpose in life, or that one who has a child should feel fulfilled?
The question that I really want answered it "Why is a woman's purpose in life to have children, as you say?"
Quote:
There are many people who are born with less hormone and yet they marry a woman and bring children. But to say they have less hormone so they are gay is wrong.
Having less hormones isn't the SOLE cause of homosexuality. Nobody claimed that it was so. Also you really need to understand causation better. Having less hormones doesn't make you infertile. It doesn't mean that, physically, you cannot have children. You might have less hormones, have children and even be happy with them... but having more or less hormones has nothing to do with that ability. Having less hormones may be a PART of the reasons why a person is homosexual.
Fertility and homosexuality have NOTHING to do with each other. Or do any of you disagree?
Quote:
If you don’t have a purpose in life your astray. Don’t they say make a goal in your life to continue living. If someone don’t have then boredom and suicidal are their solution, right?
You see, I think i have a purpose in life, but that purpose of mine is self-determined. I though about it and accepted it. I MADE my purpose in life, nobody imposed it to me. What I meant to say is that i think people's purpose in life is not dictated from above, or born with you, or ordered by anybody. I think that purposes are self-made and, therefore, all will be different in one point or another. That is why I can only say what MY purpose in life is, but not what other people's is or isn't. I cannot say that someone's purpose in life is, or isn't, to live like a homosexual, because I don't know. And I don't think YOU know. If you know, then tell me why.
Quote:
My predict is that in ancient they didn’t expect people to be gay and lesbian and it happened, they didn’t expect that children one day will make their mothers as their servants and it happened, they didn’t expect that one day the people will tell the rapist to hide behind a wall and rape a woman and it happened, they didn’t expect that the technology will become like this and it became, ….etc. Now I think they didn’t expect that one day twincest will happen while it will. What makes you sure that it wont happen?
Study history, then.
The ancient Greeks (the Athenians, more specifically), viewed homosexuality in a positive light. The are ancients, you know? They knew about rape, they knew about incest (Oedipus), they knew about it all! Read roman history, there is something called "the rape of the Sabines" that is part of it. Read ancient mythology, about gods that married their siblings. They knew it could happen! it is a common belief that our primitive ancestors, before the rise of anything called "civilization", raped females. If it is true, then we've known rape for a long time! And now you're telling me that the ancients didn't know about this? It happened at their time, they left their records about this.
Really, study history. you'll be surprised to know what they knew.
Quote:
I brought this from my news site which is:
http://saaid.net/Doat/yahia/61.htm
I know its Arabic. I translated it so you might find it not good ^^;
I thank you for bringing this to us.
Now, let's see what it says:
Quote:
Health damage:
It has been proved without a doubt that many of the health and medical damages who perpetrators homosexuality, which health and medical scientist in many countries of the world proved that.
Ok, let's read on.
Quote:
-Fibroid reproductive; which is spread among homosexuals in a big way. This shows the disease spreading in a form of ulcers in genital particularly the penis and anus.
-Evident inflation in the neighboring lymph glands which makes pus and appear and small cysts exit and quickly explode consists pockets and usually accompanied by high temperature, nausea, pain in arthritis and severe headaches.
-A large swelling in the external genitalia and usually this swelling occurs as a result of blocking lymph vessels because of chronic inflammation that afflicted.
-Anal often infected and it causes severe inflammation leads to pus secretion and many ulcers. In the end, a strong narrow happens in anus resultant an increase in pus secretions with bloody hemorrhaging which causes full blockage.
This is something caused by anal sex. It means that people performing anal sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, are likely to suffer from this ailment. because the cause is anal sex, then it ISN'T a "homosexual" disease". it is an "anal sex disease". it is true that homosexuals are more propense to it, because thay are more likely to partake in anal sex, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an Anal sex disease. There is correlation, but not causation.
Quote:
-Catch tumors in the genitals especially cancers.
That happens to everyone who doesn't take proper care of the genitalia, both homosexual and heterosexual. A woman who has sex wit many men and doesn't clean helself will also suffer from this; even though she isn't homosexual, whereas a homosexual who has little sexual activity and/or takes care of himself will not suffer from this. Therefore, the CAUSE is not homosexuality.
Quote:
-Transfer venereal and serious sexual diseases because of homosexuality.
Heterosexuality also transfers sexual diseases; in fact it transfers the same diseases. AIDS, for example. In this case it is not all about homosexuality; it is sexual activity as a whole. I also point you to the word "transfer", which means that. "Transfer" not "cause".
Quote:
-Modern science has proved that there is a strong relationship between homosexuality and epidemic hepatitis disease.
Just like it has proven that injectable drug abuse and hepatitis epidemics are related. Once again RELATION, not causation. Homosexuality doesn't cause hepatitis, because otherwise only homosexuals would have hepatitis.
Quote:
-Modern science has also proved that sodomy is the main reason for the acquired immune deficiency disease (AIDS).
Haha, what'd you know? Now this is flat out wrong. The reason for AIDS is a VIRUS.
Now, for the transmission of AIDS, sodomy IS a cause, yes, but there are many others. Vaginal sex as I and others have repeated ad nauseum. By the way, even if I were to accept that sodomy is the main form of AIDS transmission (because it is not the cause), sodomy also happens between heterosexuals, so it would mean that anyone who partakes in sodomy is pvulnerable... but not only homosexuals.
Quote:
-Sodomy cause a major mind imbalance, disquietude in thinking, strange stasis in concept and strong weakness in the will/act.
-Sodomy causes weakness in psychological and neurological strength.
Quote:
-Early death because of those serious diseases.
Once again, it is not homosexuality with causes death. it is the diseases, and the diseases are not caused by homosexuality, but by anal sex, poor hygiene, sexual activity in general or sodomy. But neither, nor all of them, necessarily mean homosexuality. A homosexual is propense to them, just as a homosexual is propense to a car crash or the common cold. Yet these aren't homosexual events, are they?
By the way, Homosexuals can avoid may of these diseases AND still engage in sexual activity: Mutual masturbation.
So, your point that homosexuality causes diseases isn't proven yet. But I acknowledge you for trying.
trueline wrote:
Quote:
If those couples (gay and lesbian) doesn’t match each other or one doesn’t gain anything from the other then their relationship is wrong.
thats how i see them but i dont know in what way people see them as couples.
I didn't know you were such profit-oriented people. If something doesn't give a person some sort of benefit, then it is wrong?
Quote:
Love isnt an excuse.
Love isn't an excuse for being a couple with someone you love? Then what is?
[quote="du5k"]On another note... I must say that AIDS or any other STDs are pretty much out of discussion here.
Quote:
i didnt heard it (that vaginal sex causes/ bring/creat or i dunno to make them understand)but i do believe. But nevermind what they said b/c i think they still didnt get it ( hopefully not) and i need to bring someone to translate what i said to them.
Oh, we get it, alright.
You had never heard that Vaginal sex causes AIDS.
Well, you still haven't, because vaginal sex doesn't cause AIDS. AIDS is caused by a virus. Vaginal sex transmits AIDS. there is no causation between AIDS and Vaginal sex, but there is correlation. That's all there is to it. Do YOU get it now? Or is there something that you want ME to get?
By the way, if you want ME to get something, better bring along some proof, evidence or source I can look at to believe it or not, just like KaRei and Ultimasome have done. They might have failed to convince me, I might think that their sources are flawed, but I say that their attempts at it have been far better than yours.
du5k wrote:
[size=18]AIDS or any other STDs are pretty much out of discussion here.
I know what you mean, but they are saying that homosexuality CAUSES these diseases, when, in fact, it doesn't. These diseases are caused by viruses, fungi and other agents that do not appear because of homosexuality, because homosexuality, whether it is a mental disease or not, whether it is a hormonal imbalance or not, whether it is a matter of taste or not, whether it is a choice or not, it refers to MENTAL and BEHAVIORAL aspects, it even has a small physical aspect to it, but nothing viral, fungal or bacteriological. There is no inherent relationship between homosexuality and any STD. If anyone disagrees, TRY TO CONVINCE US!
du5k wrote:
I dun care you put which rod in which hole, but AIDS it transmitted through human fluids and not because of putting a wrong plug in a wrong socket. Even if 200 gays randomly screw each other everyday, but as long as NONE of them have AIDS and they DO NOT screw with other people, NONE of them will EVER get AIDS. Lets bring the mutating viruses out of topic here.
I kind of said that in one way or another. Maybe people's desire for more pleasure. Maybe not the same wording or message but close depending on how you interpret it.
Quote:
I see they told you that your "living under a rock". I guess I am too living under the same rock with you ^^
It might not be your fault, it might, who knows. It could be your government for failing to provide medical care and awareness and education. In India, they once had a problem with condoms not being used properly because not many men (or women if women are the ones using female condom) knew how to put them on properly and the fact that their government failed to provide condoms "for their size".
Quote:
disable people
I'd like to say disable people aren't hopeless. Some can work for themselves. The End, PM me if you wanna go further.
Quote:
Now can you explain this to me. How did she and they get it? They are virgin and healthy.
*sigh*
As repeatedly said, aids can be transfered from body fluid through sex. But lets assume these boys never had sex soooooooooooo we can presume they have been in contact with infected needles or were born with aids through their mothers or came into contact with infected blood.
Quote:
No one becomes gay or lesbian unless something encourages them.
No one can ever encourage someone to be gay or hetro. But there are a lot that encourage people to come out of hiding and face the prejudice against them.
Bleh. Can't read that site that Some posted. I won't say whether the site is reliable or purely propaganda bias. _________________
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 8164 Location: la la land
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Ooo can you repeat that again? Btw, are you good in drawing pictures?
It would be better if we talked about something else because discussing with you about homosexual is P O I N T L E S S
And it wont end, but unfortunately this thread is for homosexual.
you have no idea, im an artist, thats what i do for living.
im not here to discuss things with you, you make a poor, invalid discussion so far. i over-estimated you from the beginning, i thought this could be a nice ethical debate. trust me, when you acknowledge the basic facts (eg. no sex activities of any sort causes HIV) i will stop being a jerk.
you guys should be glad it is only me being so bluntly honest. other people are just being reeeeally patient you know.
Quote:
I dun care you put which rod in which hole, but AIDS it transmitted through human fluids and not because of putting a wrong plug in a wrong socket. Even if 200 gays randomly screw each other everyday, but as long as NONE of them have AIDS and they DO NOT screw with other people, NONE of them will EVER get AIDS. Lets bring the mutating viruses out of topic here.
clear as crystal, sir! i just hope they have the capacity to understand it.
trueline wrote:
Leoxjm wrote:
sex is not just about reproduction, or biology. As I said before, sex is not just that. Or do you disagree? If a husband enjoys having anal sex with his wife and neither of them has sex with someone else, are those people wrong?
I never said sex is only for reproduction. About your second question, if someone was hungry and ate human's flesh though there are food but he like the taste of human's flesh. Is he doing wrong? Yeah then the same for having anal sex instead of vaginal sex.
you cant compare something consented against something that is not.
they can have anal sex if both party are consented. i doubt the eaten individual ever agreed to participate cannabolism (some tribes are exceptional) _________________ "Look at me, with my pretty bracelet and tiara... I'm a fuckin' princess!"
[img:160:122:c4b28be4ec]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8233/lkaedeoutplayzr5.gif[/img:c4b28be4ec]
From one point of view wheather people have sex (which sex they have or with whom they have) has nothing to do with me. On the other side if I see anything as not right I should try to help those people realize that they aren't doing right thing and tell them what is right and how to reach the right way.
But if sex other people's sex has nothing to do with you, why do you think that some sex is wrong and you should be opposed to it? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Quote:
With the suicide I didn't mean that it is same or similar as homosexuality. The point was that I see a lot of people not caring when they have nothing to do with that thing. This is going to be a serious problem because people already don't care even if a group of three guys is obviously trying to get a young women away from a public and rape her (although she was calling for help, nobody from people that was around helped her - this happened about a year ago). I don't say that I'm different and that I would be the only one that would do something. I'm also allowing the possibility that I wouldn't care too. In a same way I don't say that it would be exactly YOU who wouldn't care. One thing is speaking about something, another is doing it that way when the situation really comes. My opinion in this is anyway that when people don't care even about lesser things, they would get used to not care and they wouldn't sometimes see that now, after long time when nothing important was happening, is the right time to do something. People that care even about so called pitty little things about which is said that they have nothing to do with them, are in my oppinion more used to care about things and already because they care about everything they have, in my opinion, higher chance to not overlook something important. It surely isn't a rule that works always, but I think that the chance of do or don't do would be effected by this aspect rapidly.
Well, if we all cared a bit more, the world would be a better place. Everyone agrees? yes? Now, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, does it?
Quote:
I apologize to all people that feel touched by my last post from where it may look like I'm pointing on them as exactly they don't care at all. I don't know exactly you so I don't blame exactly you. I was generalizing on a facts I was able to see from surroundings and I didn't mean any specific person. Everybody should think about that example and about what I said and admit by himself weather he is like that or not. I was thinking about myself in that or similar cases and I found a lot of cases where I admited that I would be probably one of those that wouldn't care. I want to change thus I'm caring more and more and about so called pitty things that are said that has nothing to do with me to learn myself to care more and to be able with not lying to myself that I would in all important cases do something. Whether you'll find yourself that you're the one that would care or not is only on you because you know yourself the best.
Apology accepted.
Quote:
The right to tell somebody that he is doing something wrong is from persuasion that when is something wrong on what he do, you should tell him that it's wrong and tell him what is right. Anyway I never said that any love is wrong. This persuasion isn't just my, but also of millions other people.
Ok, I agree with that.
Quote:
I don't think that people should be chased, (can't find harressed in dictionary what it means) raped, beat up or killed for being who they are. I don't think that it is ok and I never supported such view. I support a way which is about speaking with them, helping them realize and helping them to change. Not beat them.
1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
[...]
Synonyms: These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands
About curability of homosexuality are two camps, both of them large enought, one that see homosexuality as curable disorder, one as a normal thing that doesn't need to be cured. Both of camps has enough arguments to support their stand and none of these camps refute arguments of the other side that it would make this or that side more right than the other.
That's not entirely right (the last part) You see, one cam treats homosexuality as a disease or disorder, one says it is something "normal". Now, those possitions are exclusive of one another. If the camp that says that homosexuality is a disease treats it, but doesn't say it isn't "normal", then why is is treating it in the first place? It is treating it in the first place? the fact that it thinks of homosexuality as a disorder it means that it is essentially rejecting any possible "normalcy". yes, people aren't at each other throats all the time, but in fact thy are very different animals.
Quote:
Some pleasure can became bad when it is going to be something like drug. When you are for example playing too much on PC and you are almost dependent on it, then, although it's a pleasure, it's bad. When you would watch anime most the time that it will become almost your drug, then it is bad although it's a pleasure.
I agree, but then you are not saying that something is bad because it is a pleasure. You are saying that something is bad because it is an addiction. And I agree with that, but homosexual sex is not an addiction. Some homosexuals have little sexual activity or are involved in a monogamous relationship, both of which can also occur with heterosexuality, and are not addictions. People who are addicted to sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual need help to deal with their addiction, but those who have no addiction, homosexual or heterosexual need no help nor are they wrong. therefore, there are homosexuals who are not addicted and, therefore, not wrong. Therefore, homosexuality on the whole, is not wrong.
Quote:
On these examples is bad that 1) you're damaging your eyes and 2) you should do aso something else and not only sit there (as I do right now ).
Now you're extrapolating too much. I didn't say that anime is my only hobby, nor that it is ALL I ever do. I also like to read books, play sports, talk to people and play board games. I agree that too much of a good thing can be bad, but I never brought up excess, because I assumed (correctly) that you'd think excess is not good, and I agree. So that was beside the point from the beginning. You only mentioned pleasure and I answered with pleasure; so my examples have not yet been proven as bad. Try again.
Quote:
Sex for pleasure has a tendency to become as a drug for people. You want it often, and more. As is said, with food is growing apetite. This is a potencial danger because your partner could become less attractive for you (the sex would become something ordinary) and in a need to feel it as before some people begin to search for somebody else. And here we're comming to AIDS, again.
That, my friend, is a matter of self-control, and sex addiction is not related to this topic. and, by the way, increasing sexual appetite has really nothing to do with AIDS. You increase your chances of getting it by screwing around, true, but AIDS can even happen to people who have sex once a year if they have sex with the wrong person.
Quote:
Note: I used the word "potential", not "absolute", when I spoke about the danger.
Duly noted.
Quote:
About naturality and unnaturality of homosexuality, leoxjm took it to such extreme that even if somebody would born with three hands that if it wouldn't be harmful to that person, it would be natural and doctors shouldn't have the right to take the third hand away.
Look, I am trying to not take everything to extremes, and I admit it when I do. For the rest of it I am using LOGIC. I listed other unnatural things to tell you that nothing can be bad just because it is unnatural. Some unnatural things are good, some are bad. But if that is the case, the reason for their wrongness must be another one or, at least, more complicated than that. If one thing is bad simply because it is unnatural, then why aren't all other unnatural things wrong? You see, by saying "homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural" you are making an absolute statement that cannot be sustained. Do you see how flawed your logic is?
And you have successfully predicted my response. If someone were born with three hands, no doctor has the right to remove the third arbitrarily. A doctor only has the right to remove the third if the person wanted it removed, or if the parents of the baby decide it will be better for his welfare to get it removed. But the doctors don't have the right to make that decision (unless the hand threatened the persons life; it is their job to save lives). What I sought to show you is that because something is natural or because it is unnatural it is not wrong or right, nor is it bad or good. Right and wrong and natural and unnatural have, essentially, nothing to do with each other. You can't absolutely equate one with the other.
Quote:
It's true that I see sex between homosexuals as loathsome. But I disagree that it is a clue to everything. I admit at it has it's role in the case, but not just that. Same as I see sex between homosexuals loathsome I see kissing between them loathsome as well. But only sex between them I see as bad.
I'm gonna sound like a broken record. Why do you see sex between homosexuals as bad?
"Because it is only for pleasure" implies that sex for pleasure is bad AND that homosexuals are only capable of sex for pleasure, which are points that, so far, you have failed to prove convincingly. You'll have to try harder than that.
Quote:
And because leoxjm few times repeated question WHY I see homosexuality as bad, I'll summarize whole case where I'll answer him as well:
Thanks
Quote:
- I don't see love between homosexuals as bad
Neither do I. Same outlook here.
Quote:
- I see sex between homosexuals as bad because that way of sex is missing love and is just for pleasure, thus bringing up a possibility of cuckoldry and deceases
Ok, here we have some weak thinking. By not seeing sex between homosexuals as bad, you implied something:
Love between homosexuals exists.
Now, you also admitted that there CAN be sex with love. (not all sex is with love, and I agree)
Now, why don't you think that two homosexuals in love an have sex as part of their love?
Now, if a homosexual couple already has no diseases and they are careful in their hygiene, the possibility of diseases is reduced and, therefore, not bad? By they way, I want to point out that heterosexual sexual activities can cause the same diseases, and the risks of disease in it are just as high. You don't see them as bad and, reasonably, homosexual sex cannot be seen as bad because it can cause diseases.
Quote:
- I see every person able love any other person regardless the gendre, the only limit is sexual orientation that is preventing us from trying to find partner from same (if hetero) or opposite (if homo) gendre.
I agree
Quote:
- I see homosexuality curable (because of the point above) and I support an oppinion that if the barrier of sexual orientation is changed or removed, the homosexual is able love opposite gendre partner with true love
Once again, flawed reasoning. You say that all homosexuality is "curable", which nobody has proof of (I take you to mean "all" because I didn't see the word "some"). Otherwise I'm willing to let the rest of your point slide, because the first invalid part pretty much invalidated the whole thing.
Now, let's take you to mean "Some homosexuality is curable and I support an oppinion that if the barrier of sexual orientation is changed or removed, the homosexual is able love opposite gendre partner with true love"
In that case i agree with your statement, but by saying this you admit that there are some homosexuals who can't be cured and they are capable of living their life in love with someone of the same gender.
Quote:
- I'm against beating or killing homosexuals.
So am I.
After reading this I want to ask a question for you. How do you reconcile the fact that you think that "homosexuality is bad" with the fact that you "don't see love between homosexuals as bad"? How and why isn't this a major contradiction in the way that you think?
Quote:
PS: It's late and I went as far as leoxjm's post was with my answers. I don't have now power to read through Lino's, Somey's and Du5k's posts, I'll do it later. Sorry people.
It's OK, it happens.
AA wrote:
their government failed to provide condoms "for their size"
LOL
Quote:
Bleh. Can't read that site that Some posted. I won't say whether the site is reliable or purely propaganda bias.
If I understand correctly, Some went to the trouble of translating it (Thanks ) and posting the content before the link. read the list and make of it what you will. _________________
Woah I missed you guys. Look at all this meaningful spamming!
Short opinion: If God exists, than it's His fault people are gay so religious people have no right to persecute them, if they do they should go to hell hehehehehe
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 8164 Location: la la land
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:01 am Post subject:
alright, now this thread has died down a little, i have a question for some sensible discussion.
disclaimer: the following does not support any ignorant, uneducated "aids kill fags dead" theory.
keep it short, it is widely believed that homosexual behaviours (though basically means oral and anal, which can be performed by heterosexuals, the whole thing is contradicting) have higer risks of the HIV infection. i have read a few articles about it, but i dont know how reliable or if it was biased.
disclaimer: the above does not support any ignorant, uneducated "aids kill fags dead" theory. twist my words and i will bite you _________________ "Look at me, with my pretty bracelet and tiara... I'm a fuckin' princess!"
[img:160:122:c4b28be4ec]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8233/lkaedeoutplayzr5.gif[/img:c4b28be4ec]
Usually, in a homosexual person (a guy in this case) are more rough (masculine), and thus a homosexual has a higher chance of being a swinger instead of a heterosecuals. And you know... go around screwing does have a high chance of getting AIDS.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All images and comments are property of their respective owners, all the rest � 2002 by Anime-Source.com.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
