Do you dislike gay people, or do you have no problem with th

moparman · Post by **moparman** » 26 May 2006 14:55

BainbridgeShred wrote:
im a DISGRACE? no a disgrace would be the south. They have become yankees here lately. preps have taken over....
Trust me, I don't like Yankee culture any more than I do Southern culture (At any point in US history), but it's fucking America we live in. We worship the dollar in this country, and thus have consumerism. You don't expect the South to be effected? Any country we touch is infected. And besides, the North won the fucking war! Of course their culture is dominant over yours.

I gotta admit, it's kind of refreshing to talk to another Southerner again. There's zero up here in gay ass post-modernist Seattle. I feel like I'm behind enemy lines up. I need to mvoe back down when I'm out of HS.

Your right. I aint gonna lie. your right. but yeah you need to come back! lol

jbalexdarkelf · Post by **jbalexdarkelf** » 05 Jun 2006 19:46

This is why Kentucky's crazy, where in the south, but were kindof north too. (Random and useless)

If you think of sexuality (gay/straight) in like a whole biological scientific type view (yeah I bs'd my way through that one) the original point of male/female relationships was to reproduce. People in regular relationships can reproduce with each other, people in homosexual relationships cant. SO therefore bieng gay is useless.

Now the post get pg-13. If you think about it even more, male and females are made, physicaly, to go together. When they "do it" its coplete, mothings left over. Dudes and dudes just dont work. And you cant argue with that, because its science, and in todays world, science is supposed to own everything's ass.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Jun 2006 22:10

You have a completely misguided sense of evolution and science.

According to science nature doesn't work towards a particular circumstance - so all actions are "pointless". It's like water running down hill. Water doesn't go down hill because it wants to go down hill. As far as we know, water doesn't have any desires about where it would like to be - it goes down hill ultimately because of the polarity of its molucules making it stick together combined with interactions between the wave duality of water and the earth.

So life doesn't have the goal of reproducing and the point of life is not to reproduce - it's just that life has a set existence - it does not last forever - for example the life expectancy for a human is about 80 years. However life forms that do reproduce can pass on their genetic details to another generation - hence in 90 years time all the humans you have are the offspring from humans that did reproduce. So life that is more likely to reproduce become slowly more dominate - typically it takes millions of years for that domination to be noticable. So it's not matter of reproducing being a "point" of life but rather a consequence of reproducing is our continued existence as a species. According to science this is neither a good or a bad thing.

jbalexdarkelf · Post by **jbalexdarkelf** » 06 Jun 2006 05:50

Damn, whether I agree with you or not Jeremy, you are one intelegent person.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 06 Jun 2006 06:38

jbalexdarkelf wrote:Damn, whether I agree with you or not Jeremy, you are one intelegent person.

intelligent

Man, you were talking about biological reasoning. According to you, there is no biological reasoning for two dudes to play twister together. However, it has already been addressed in this thread that there is. A portion of the brain is consistantly differed between hetero and homo sexuals. Leaving the scientific explanation to be that there is a biological purpose to homosexuality, in that it is what the individual is bilogically driven to be in that type of relationship.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 06 Jun 2006 12:24

jbalexdarkelf wrote: SO therefore bieng gay is useless.
---
Dudes and dudes just dont work. And you cant argue with that, because its science, and in todays world, science is supposed to own everything's ass.

So what harm does it make if homosexuals want to live/have sex/etc together? Do you think the same way about all the other "useless" things in life too?
Besides, it's just as useless to consider homosexuality to be bad. Like said, it's biological, you can't change it if you wanted. I'd like to know what you think about racism, because being negative about other people's skin color is just the same as being negative about people's different brain structure. No one can't change them.

jbalexdarkelf · Post by **jbalexdarkelf** » 06 Jun 2006 14:53

I'm not racist.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 06 Jun 2006 16:59

TheVindicator wrote:
jbalexdarkelf wrote:Damn, whether I agree with you or not Jeremy, you are one intelegent person.
intelligent

Man, you were talking about biological reasoning. According to you, there is no biological reasoning for two dudes to play twister together. However, it has already been addressed in this thread that there is. A portion of the brain is consistantly differed between hetero and homo sexuals. Leaving the scientific explanation to be that there is a biological purpose to homosexuality, in that it is what the individual is bilogically driven to be in that type of relationship.

It's called mutation. Evolution does not have a purpose, variations come about with cell mutations and produce different features, if that feature aids in survival and reproduction it will eventually become more common.

For instance:
The reasoning "Giraffes have long necks so that they can reach tall trees" makes no sense. Giraffes have long necks because it was benificial, so the ones with longer necks faired better and were more likely to pass their genes on to offspring. Mutliply this by millions of years and the necks just keep getting longer and you get today's giraffes.

Chris Holden · Post by **Chris Holden** » 07 Jun 2006 09:18

gay people? Love them!

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/0 ... ingdom.php

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 07 Jun 2006 14:15

Chalk another up for the good guys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5056474.stm

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 07 Jun 2006 14:44

How come, when it comes to preserving the sanctity of marriage, it's always gay people that are seen as the threat ?

Why does the government spout off about the importance of family,
and the need for the family structure, and then does nothing to protect it.

Why is divorce still legal ? Being able to get a divorce threatens over 50% of heterosexual
marriages, and places kids in these families at risk of emotional trama and neglect.
Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage, and we should have a constitutional ammendment
banning divorce. It is the only way to save our society from all of these failed marriages.

Why are prenuptial contracts legal ? By allowing couples to prepare for seperation, other than by death,
as stated in the vows of marriage, they are allowing people to weaken the marriage
institution. Shouldn't the government address prenuptial arrangements, and the
effect they have on the stability of a marriage ?

How come most divorces arise because of financial hardships, leading
to conflict and anger between the husband and wife ?
Should the government step in and regulate business so that they can't take actions which
would cause families to fall on hard times ? How can they sit there and say they value
the family, and the sanctity of marriage ? The government consistently passes laws that
create favorable condiditions for the destruction of families, and allows corporations to
destroy our pillar of society.

Looking at the country, with our easy divorces and drive through weddings,
it's hard to tell exactly how gays being able to marry weakens the institution.
Write your congress criter today, let them know that you value marriage and want
to save it. Tell them we want it saved from divorce, saved from prenuptials, and saved from
destruction due to corporate actions. Only by having constitutional ammendments banning
divorce, banning prenuptials, and banning corporate sponsored destruction of families, can
we even begin to save this important foundation of society.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 07 Jun 2006 15:59

It's cuz fags are gay.

Seriously though, why is this such a big problem? I think I saw a political cartoon about this same issue. something to the tune of;

P1: She's using him for his money
P2: He's using her for her body
p1: He's been though 3 other marrages before
p2: and she's on her 2nd now
p1: They'll never make it
p2: At least they're not gay
p1: Amen for that. Thank God for american values

If that's american values, I'll be unamerican. The man and woman marrage is a religious thing. fine. let the religions not bless them. I think religion is crap anyways(DO NOT GO OFF ON THIS TANGENT, OR I'LL STEAL A BANHAMMER AND SWING IT WITH A MIGHTY.... THING!). I don't feel the government has a right to ban 2/3's of possible marrages. Besides, won't they get tax money from it all? What the fuck do they have to bitch about?

Seperation of Church and State is all I'm asking... please?

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 09 Jun 2006 06:43

jbalexdarkelf wrote:I'm not racist.

I wasn't saying that. (Got a déjà vu -feeling - you're the second person on modified who thinks I'm calling him a racist. Although I'm not, at least not trying.

)
In my eyes discriminating someone because of his/her homosexuality is the same as discriminating someone because of any other characteristic the person can't change, such as skin color.

I don't really know what you really think about gays in normal life, just that you think homosexuality is useless.
In case you'd happen to be a true, homophobic red-neck - then yes, I think it's the same as you were a racist. Otherwise not.

jbalexdarkelf · Post by **jbalexdarkelf** » 09 Jun 2006 09:44

okay, sorry man, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying, you know bieng from Kentucky an all I cant read well

And as for what I think about gay people in normal life, there's nothing I can do about them bieng gay anyways, sooo....... I mean I dont have to like the fact that they're gay, but they are people, and it takes some serious balls to stand up for somthing like that, so I guess I respect their lifestyle in that sence.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Jun 2006 21:23

There was a funny cartoon about this in yesterdays paper (because in Australia our leader wants to ban gay unions)

There's a priest reading the wedding vowles for a hetrosexual couple and says:

"In sickness and in health until death do you part, unless of course gay marriages are legalised, in which case you'll have to get a divorce".

There's also been some funny letters pointing out the link between the Liberal party in Australia opposing gay unions and also any other kind of union as well. It's like maybe if they were called "gay partnerships" the Liberals wouldn't be opposed (*note Liberal with a capital L is the name of a political party in Australia which is the most conservative mainstream party and certainly has very little relationship with small l liberals).

emubagger · Post by **emubagger** » 26 Dec 2007 16:41

notin wrong wit "them" sounds mean

i just get annoyed by the gay designer guys

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 27 Dec 2007 00:40

Gayness (excuse me) must be the the highest state of being. And the priests are trying keep it to themselves.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 27 Dec 2007 05:12

I'm not homophobic... I hate all sexualities equally.

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 27 Dec 2007 08:59

Homophobia is no different then racism imo. Uninformed persons bashing those that they don't understand.

I have no problem, but I sometimes wonder what i'd think had I not been close to a gay uncle my whole life and did not have gay friends.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 27 Dec 2007 22:27

old topic is old