The seemingly anti-gay thread

[Lori_7]

I'm so stymied on politics. I don't want what the majority wants. I don't want what the minority wants either. I don't even want this world for crying out loud so what does it matter? I long for the day when it all goes up in flames and we can all start over. This world doesn't make me happy...it doesn't satisfy or fulfill me. God does. Only through Him do I find any comfort, love, peace, or joy, and I find so much with Him...it's so abundant with Him, while it is so scarce in this world. I find from personal experience that it just doesn't matter what the laws of this land are. The things of this world just don't matter...God will make a way for those who seek Him and love Him regardless of what is happening in this world.

Isn't being a liar and a crook prerequisit to becoming a politician in the first place? Anyone who would hope to enter the race with any good intentions wouldn't make it past go. There is only one King, and there is only one Law...everything else is an illusion created to distract from the truth...to take it's place and make you forget about it. So busy, busy, busy creating it, defining it, enforcing it, arguing it...IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!! The only reason that I obey the laws of this land is because God's Law says to...period. Cause I know that they are at best arbitrary, and at worst soaked in sin. It's all about greed, it's all about power and control. You wanna see sloth? Take a visit to any goverment office in your area...any one, it doesn't matter...and watch the employees for a while. It'll blow your mind...you would swear that they were all on acid. Our government operations are ass-backwards and archaic...nothing but a bunch of mindless paper-pushing to produce nice fat paychecks for fat, lazy, stupid, self-serving people. Our government isn't for the people...it's only for the people who are on it's payroll...and I'm not and could never be...cause I'm way too honest...so who the fuck cares? The policticians are corrupt, the judges are corrupt, the prosecutors are corrupt, the police are corrupt, and everyone else involved is apathetic and lazy cause the only energy they expend is put towards getting fat off of the system, and it certainly doesn't take much to do that.

Anyway, when it comes to God's Law vs man's law...

There would have to be inherent benefits if man's law were to be based upon God's law or seek to enforce it somehow...just because God's law is perfect. Given, we're gonna screw it up, but at least it's a start in the right direction. My point would be though that if the only reason someone adhere's to or follows God's law is because they are forced to by the law of the land, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? Doesn't the fact that they are only doing it because they are "forced to" or told to by a man make it worthless? Yes, in fact it does make it worthless. So what is the point? Is it to force your self-righteousness on someone else? Is it to make YOU feel more comfortable? Is it to protect you? I seriously doubt it. Not when it comes to a law like gay marriage for God's sake. No one is forcing YOU to have sexual relations with anyone you don't want to or marry someone of the same sex, so WHAT DO YOU CARE???? Is it to protect your children pehaps? Well, then you should just put them in a big bubble...or maybe home school them and never let them out of the house, or play with the other children because, oh my, the other childrens parents might be sinners, and you're not right? Right. Or better yet, why don't you just move your family and your self-righteous ass off to some remote deserted island and leave the rest of us evil sinners to ourselves to go to hell? Now there's an idea (not from the scripture mind you, and the exact opposite of how Jesus lived His life, but a seemingly popular one among religious folk none the less). The fact is that no one is going to force you to go against the law of God. No one is going to force you to sin. And how hilarious it would be for someone to be concerned about such a thing happening in the first place, as if they don't have enough to concern themselves with considering their own flesh and it's inherent sinful intentions...that's right, point the finger at someone else...yea, the homosexuals...it's their fault...yea the government...it's their fault. And to shelter your children and isolate them is not to protect them, but to retard them. Taking the easy way out is sloth you know? Too lazy to teach your children right from wrong? Look at all of the great examples that you could use to show them the difference in the world around you. Keeping a child ignorant of sin and the effects of it is not doing a child any favors. Let the child live...let the child see the difference...experience it if they must...it's how we learn. IT'S WHAT GOD HAS DONE FOR ALL OF US...IT IS HIS WAY...OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO SIN IN THE WORLD TODAY.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Bells, I am not rude to people who tell me they are homosexual although I admit I do feel discomfort, they look at what's on offer as much as the next man.
If you look at the examples I provided, it wasn't until the homosexual actually made advances towards me that I felt discomfort.
Now the issue I have is that as long as homosexuality is considered a good thing, homosexuals will get braver and braver in their advances towards the same sex and for a straight guy as I am, I dread the day when acceptance is the norm.
You can throw the "Your a Christian hypocrite!" at me all you like, it cannot change how I feel inside about it. You say that gay sex is Ok and cool. I say it is disgusting and wrong. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine.
Incidently I do not vote on any political issue. I do not vote period. I am not interested in political decision particulary. I render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and I render unto God what is God's.
Would you rather I be luke warm on the issue and patronise gay people as you do, all apologies and smarm, seeking their approval? I do not care for their approval. I do not want them anywhere near me while they do what they do. It is not good what they do.

c20

 

[Lori_7]

WWJD? Jesus would not shun gay people. Jesus would not have sex with gay people...lol...and He would not tell them, if asked, that what they are doing is right with God and according to the Law. He would expose the lie which causes the discrimination to take place if the person really wanted to know the truth. And if they didn't want to know, then He wouldn't, but He would certainly love them just the same. And He would not ever shun them, but always love them. Jesus was not afraid of anyone, or anything, for any reason. If God is with you, then who can be against you? Fear is a lie. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. Jesus knows no fear, only love...unconditional love. Otherwise He could love no one, because we are all in the same "condition".

 

[Tiassa]

Tiassa, I hear your point but it is the reality of the current time that you must deal with. So I ask again, how will you convince the heterosexual voter?

Like I said, lay out the facts and hope people wake up. It's often hard to figure out how the facts settle with traditionalists, because like you they won't answer for anything and just choose to keep pushing.

Like this:

Yes of course you are but the union of your two families will never bear fruit. Your genes are unfruitful and are then cut off from the rest of the collective so that the earth's resources are not wasted and are given to the fruitful instead. This is the law of nature. The seperation of the chaff from the wheat. Survival of the fittest so to speak. The fittest of course being the most fruitful. How can homosexuals benefit a collective whose prime directive is to procreate?

I would appreciate an answer to a simple question:

If you were a judge, and presiding over a custody dispute, which parent would you place a female minor with?

(A) A financially stable lesbian
(B) A convicted murderer and accused child molester​

The answer is that homosexuals who adopt the rejected fruit of heterosexuals help society by cleaning up your mess.

I mean, I can't believe we're back to the reproduction point. Perhaps if you'd put more effort into the first time I would treat it with a greater sense of validity, but you're proceeding from an incorrect presumption about the Constitution.

But for the average American, the family is at the cornerstone of the consititution. It is about achieving total equality among all families in the land. Now you may say "But my mother and father approve of what I do and so does my gay partners's, so what is that to the American Constitition? Are we not families too?"

Conservatism in the US sounds like that,too. It's funny in a way because, depending on the cause, either individuals, families, or states are the prime carriers of the Constitutional blessing.

As Mystech pointed out, your family assertion is at odds with the history of the United States.

I would actually appreciate an explanation of this part: ". . . the family is at the cornerstone of the consititution. It is about achieving total equality among all families in the land."

I mean, that's truly a new one invented in the last several years by people seeking to justify their attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in order to carry on their discrimination. And the implications are huge.

What part of American society, empowered by the Constitution, is about families? The part that guarantees health care to children? How about the part that defines what a family is? The part that establishes and protects the legal rights of your children? What's that? There are no such sections of the Constitution? Exactly.

Should a heterosexual couple unable by nature to bear children be similarly shortchanged in this society?

 

[c20H25N3o]

I would appreciate an answer to a simple question:

If you were a judge, and presiding over a custody dispute, which parent would you place a female minor with?

(A) A financially stable lesbian
(B) A convicted murderer and accused child molester​

C20: You see, it isn't me that lumps these two groups together. It is you! Hypocrite that you are!

As Mystech pointed out, your family assertion is at odds with the history of the United States.

Tell that to the dead soldier on the front line who lost his life defending his nation against the threat of terrorism, posted to a foreign country where he was shot with a tattered picture of his wife and 2 week old baby in his top pocket. A smear of blood on it where he touched it after his hand got cut up from a bit of shrapnel before his head was torn off by a falling piece of concrete from a school building he was taking explosives away from. Explosives placed in the school by cowards who had no care or concern for the iraqi children that should have been attending those schools with smiles on their faces, thoughts filled with the lovely things that western children take so hugely for granted whilst at school. Tell that to the soldier's wife who will never be able to tell him she loves him again. Tell it to the soldier's son when he is thirty five and his fiance has to deal with all the baggage he is carrying for not having a father. The father he could have learned so much from before he had his head torn off by a piece of falling concrete. Tell it to the soldier's grandson who hears other boys telling of their funny grandpa's that sit them on their knees and tell them stories. Tell it to whoever you like. You are wrong. The family has always been at the heart of America. It is the American dream.

I would actually appreciate an explanation of this part: . . . the family is at the cornerstone of the consititution.

C20: I have already done it.


Should a heterosexual couple unable by nature to bear children be similarly shortchanged in this society?

C20: No.I would pity the hetrosexual couple who could bear no children. It is not their fault.
Who can feel sorry for the homosexual that bears no children? They are not made that way.


Thanks

c20

 

[heart]

C20: No.I would pity the hetrosexual couple who could bear no children. It is not their fault. Who can feel sorry for the homosexual that bears no children? They are not made that way.

I don't think a single soul is asking that you feel sorry for homosexuals because we cannot bear children traditionally. The whole point here, c20, would be that you are screaming that the only reason for those to marry is because of procreation. So Tiassa is asking since a couple would not be able to bear children- should they be shortchanged just as you want to short change homosexuals. Do you not see how you are being a wee bit prejudice in your thinking here? If you are going to say that homosexuals should not have equal rights because we can't procreate then neither should the heterosexual couples who can't. Fair is fair, correct?

Now the issue I have is that as long as homosexuality is considered a good thing, homosexuals will get braver and braver in their advances towards the same sex and for a straight guy as I am, I dread the day when acceptance is the norm.
You can throw the "Your a Christian hypocrite!" at me all you like, it cannot change how I feel inside about it. You say that gay sex is Ok and cool. I say it is disgusting and wrong. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine.
Incidently I do not vote on any political issue. I do not vote period. I am not interested in political decision particulary. I render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and I render unto God what is God's.
Would you rather I be luke warm on the issue and patronise gay people as you do, all apologies and smarm, seeking their approval? I do not care for their approval. I do not want them anywhere near me while they do what they do. It is not good what they do.

You are not the only person on the planet, c20. I can sit here and tell you about how I hate getting hit on by guys who will look me up and down- that makes me totally uncomfortable- don't get me wrong I deal with it like an adult and go on. How I hate that because I live in a small town which is totally closed minded and not very gay friendly- that I can't be me- all the freaking hiding I have to do around certain people to avoid shit and physical fights breaking out. (when's the last time you have ever heard of a heterosexual being bashed because they are straight?) So don't give me this bullshit of how bad you'll have it. Just to let you know though that the percentage of homosexuals is so low that I doubt you'll have a flock of homosexual men waiting to hit on you.

God c20- we are no freaking different than you are- yet you refuse to see that. Truth is you probably know a homosexual and are not even aware that they are. You are so wrapped up in your homophobia that you cannot even think clearly about this topic, as evident in your posts.

 

[c20H25N3o]

I don't think a single soul is asking that you feel sorry for homosexuals because we cannot bear children traditionally. The whole point here, c20, would be that you are screaming that the only reason for those to marry is because of procreation. So Tiassa is asking since a couple would not be able to bear children- should they be shortchanged just as you want to short change homosexuals. Do you not see how you are being a wee bit prejudice in your thinking here? If you are going to say that homosexuals should not have equal rights because we can't procreate then neither should the heterosexual couples who can't. Fair is fair, correct?



You are not the only person on the planet, c20. I can sit here and tell you about how I hate getting hit on by guys who will look me up and down- that makes me totally uncomfortable- don't get me wrong I deal with it like an adult and go on. How I hate that because I live in a small town which is totally closed minded and not very gay friendly- that I can't be me- all the freaking hiding I have to do around certain people to avoid shit and physical fights breaking out. (when's the last time you have ever heard of a heterosexual being bashed because they are straight?) So don't give me this bullshit of how bad you'll have it. Just to let you know though that the percentage of homosexuals is so low that I doubt you'll have a flock of homosexual men waiting to hit on you.

God c20- we are no freaking different than you are- yet you refuse to see that. Truth is you probably know a homosexual and are not even aware that they are. You are so wrapped up in your homophobia that you cannot even think clearly about this topic, as evident in your posts.

Again you miss the point I feel. I do not hate homosexual men who do not act in a homosexual way towards me. But if they do I instinctively run away. I have no intention of hitting them. Why would I want to even stick around once they had hit on me? You don't stick around if guys are hitting on you do you? As for equal rights, I have said I do not vote. I do not even live in America. I have explained though that because I do not like homosexual men coming on to me, it would turn me off voting for a party that actively encouraged homosexuality. Hence I went on to say that this is about a majority / minority thing and this is why it is how it is.
But since saying this, I am a hypocrite who would beat up gays and lump them together with paedophiles? And I cannot think clearly about this topic? It is the homosexual who has a fight with the government. Not I. I was pointing that out and giving reasons for it in the spirit of debate. I also provided some personal insights to expand on the ideas I was presenting.
I fear that the homosexual might just be taking their frustrations out on me because I do not agree with them that they have a right to expect it. The government makes the policy according to the will of the voters. Like I said "How will you convince voters to give you equal rights?" because this is what you must do to overcome your troubles.

peace

c20

 

[android]

I think separate societies for gays, and conservative straights, is the answer.

That way each can have domain over its own territory, and enforce its values.

The two will never be brought into harmony.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I am not rude to people who tell me they are homosexual although I admit I do feel discomfort, they look at what's on offer as much as the next man.
If you look at the examples I provided, it wasn't until the homosexual actually made advances towards me that I felt discomfort.

One minute you admit you'd feel discomfort when they admited their sexuality and the next minute you state you only felt discomfort if they made a move on you. So you're covered for all bases. Why is it that homosexual men hit on you so much when you were younger c20?

And do you seriously think that all straight men are in danger of being raped by the male homosexuals? Do you have any idea how idiotic and slightly deranged that sounds?

Now the issue I have is that as long as homosexuality is considered a good thing, homosexuals will get braver and braver in their advances towards the same sex and for a straight guy as I am, I dread the day when acceptance is the norm.

Homosexuals will get braver and braver in their advances? What? Do you think that they are soon going to start prowling the streets, peering into windows looking for straight prey in an effort to convert them to gaydom? Do you fear the time when a gay face will be pressed to your window as they look to converting you to their ways?

You can throw the "Your a Christian hypocrite!" at me all you like, it cannot change how I feel inside about it. You say that gay sex is Ok and cool. I say it is disgusting and wrong. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine.

Hey, you can continue to be a bigot. If you wish to discriminate and not show tolerance to others for their differences, then it's your time that you're going to be enjoying in hell. Hope you like the hot weather.

Incidently I do not vote on any political issue. I do not vote period. I am not interested in political decision particulary. I render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and I render unto God what is God's.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Would you rather I be luke warm on the issue and patronise gay people as you do, all apologies and smarm, seeking their approval? I do not care for their approval. I do not want them anywhere near me while they do what they do. It is not good what they do.

And here we comd to the crux of this issue. You don't want them around as long as they are homosexual. Have you ever thought that your reaction and treatment of homosexuals may not be good either? Have you ever thought that it's not for you to judge others? You claim that you believe in God, yet you don't act like it. Instead you think that you are God, in the manner in which you judge others for who they are. Ever thought about judging yourself? Ever thought about how you might be judged one day?

You don't get it do you? They don't need your approval. Why would anyone want it? They only want to be able to be. That's it. They want to be able to be who they are and have the same rights as everyone else. One would think that as human beings, they should have that right, don't you? So, who are you to deny anyone the right to be treated like a human being?

C20: No.I would pity the hetrosexual couple who could bear no children. It is not their fault.
Who can feel sorry for the homosexual that bears no children? They are not made that way.

Interesting. So a couple should only be married to have children. How would you judge a man who marries a woman that he knows cannot have children, while he is not infertile? After all, like the homosexual couple, they can bear no children, she was not made that way, and yet the fertile man still decided to be with her, he made a choice to do so. Would you deny that man any rights because he chose to be with someone who could not bear his fruit?

Who can feel sorry for the homosexual that bears no children? They are not made that way.

And yet you fail to recognise one thing. A homosexual can have a child. In fact many do. They are made that way and many choose to have children. So in your statement, you do feel sorry for those homosexuals who have had children? After all, they are made to have children if they so choose. They have the same organs that you and I have.

 

[Tiassa]

You see, it isn't me that lumps these two groups together. It is you! Hypocrite that you are!

Actually, if you'd be so kind as to actually answer the question, I'll be happy to demonstrate that I do not lump those two together, but rather that juxtaposition is the result of circumstance.

Which one? Dyke or murderer accused of child molestation?

Tell that to the dead soldier on the front line who lost his life defending his nation against the threat of terrorism, posted to a foreign country where he was shot with a tattered picture of his wife and 2 week old baby in his top pocket. A smear of blood on it where he touched it after his hand got cut up from a bit of shrapnel before his head was torn off by a falling piece of concrete from a school building he was taking explosives away from. Explosives placed in the school by cowards who had no care or concern for the iraqi children that should have been attending those schools with smiles on their faces, thoughts filled with the lovely things that western children take so hugely for granted whilst at school. Tell that to the soldier's wife who will never be able to tell him she loves him again. Tell it to the soldier's son when he is thirty five and his fiance has to deal with all the baggage he is carrying for not having a father. The father he could have learned so much from before he had his head torn off by a piece of falling concrete. Tell it to the soldier's grandson who hears other boys telling of their funny grandpa's that sit them on their knees and tell them stories. Tell it to whoever you like. You are wrong. The family has always been at the heart of America. It is the American dream.

'Tis heartwrenching rhetoric, I admit, but it does not change the facts of history; your assertion of family is at odds with the whole of the United States Constitution. In the history of the United States, the Constitution has never focused on the family. As many of your Christian brethren frequently assert, the state has no place in the family.

I would actually appreciate an explanation of this part: . . . the family is at the cornerstone of the consititution.

C20: I have already done it.

I would attempt to refute your explanation, but I disagree that any has been put forth. Your appeal to emotion addresses romantic principles, but not the U.S. Constitution.

C20: No.I would pity the hetrosexual couple who could bear no children. It is not their fault.
Who can feel sorry for the homosexual that bears no children? They are not made that way.

Ah, the heart of the matter. "They are not made that way"? Says who? While the "cause" of homosexuality--the specific reason it occurs in nature--is unknown, we do know that homosexual behavior occurs outside the human species. Furthermore, it is largely the Abramic heritage that makes such a big deal out of it.

To reiterate a point I posted in August:

Some random article a friend sent me the other day noted a date in history when a Roman emperor added fags to the fires, and summed up the time 'twixt then and now to demonstrate a millennial struggle.

But an accompaniment point to that notion comes to me from a magazine article I had thought long-lost until it mysteriously appeared in the middle of the coffee table two weeks ago.

Numerous deities and spirits of other traditions express similar connections between liminality and gendered or erotic diversity. Associated with amazonian behavior and with intimacy between women, the Mediterranean Artemis/Diana is frequently linked to moments of transition. She is the "one who looses" or sets free and is the "goddess of the 'out there'." . . .

. . . . The plump, elephant-headed Hindu deity Ganesha is likewise associated with the threshold and with the blurring of gender distinctions. As the loyal son of the goddess Parvati, Ganesha guards her bedchamber. In this capacity, he is described as a "protean, liminal character" who "stand on the threshold between the profane world ... and the sacred territory," who "protect the purity of the inner shrine," and who "provides access to the other gods and goddesses." Ganesha's head is that of a female elephant, while his torso is that of a human male. Even Ganesha's male torso is, however, perceived as androgynous; his softness, plumpness, and breasts are viewed as feminine. Moreover, both his "perpetually flaccid trunk" and his role as bringer of rain indicate an association with eunuchs, considered liminal figures in the Hindu cosmos. Ganesha is also associated with homoeroticism, by way of both the upanayana ritual, which may include intimate relations between master and disciple, and his patronage of the muladhara chakra. This chakra signifies not only the threshold leading to the awakening of the kundalini, but also the practice of cultic homoeroticism.

(Conner)

I feel it necessary to mention, though don't let it stop your continuing laughter after that passage, that the author cites Courtright's Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings and Daniélou's Shiva and Dionysus for that part. The former title is actually from Oxford University Press. But the whole thing gives me a chuckle inasmuch as I can't tell whether the magazine's issue theme of "threshold" is more important to the author than homosexuality in terms of the article's content. It's a great article from a four year-old magazine (see below), and it cracks me up because nobody who worries about the impact of gay marriage on children actually wants to explore the issue as deeply as one can find in an article called, "Men-Women, Gatekeepers, and Fairy Mounds." I mean, Parabola magazine's motto is, "Myth, Tradition, and the Search for Meaning."

But before Abramism attempted to stomp out homosexuality, it seems the feminine side of men and the masculine side of women were accepted, even celebrated. The coming together of a single gender in some occasions held mystical significance. We must remember that gays are not bucking tradition, but demanding the respect that is historically and anthropologically recognized in history and beyond.

Humanity has, in the past, recognized a place for sexual contact between a common gender. In fact, well, yeah--

BRITISH marines returning from an operation deep in the Afghan mountains spoke last night of an alarming new threat - being propositioned by swarms of gay local farmers.

An Arbroath marine, James Fletcher, said: "They were more terrifying than the al-Qaeda. One bloke who had painted toenails was offering to paint ours. They go about hand in hand, mincing around the village."

While the marines failed to find any al-Qaeda during the seven-day Operation Condor, they were propositioned by dozens of men in villages the troops were ordered to search.

"We were pretty shocked," Marine Fletcher said. "We discovered from the Afghan soldiers we had with us that a lot of men in this country have the same philosophy as ancient Greeks: ‘a woman for babies, a man for pleasure’."

Scotsman.com

--it's kind of hard to describe without just pointing to the news story. Marine Fletcher strikes me as having reached a rather quite hilarious dilemma: he thinks he knows what he's seeing, but finds himself flabbergasted at where he finds it.

Humanity has, in the past, as in the present, recognized homosexuality as a legitimate experience within diverse bodies social. Homosexuals "are not made that way"? Compared to the existence of homosexual behavior in nature and also its recognition in the history of the human experience, I do believe the ball is in your court to demonstrate that homosexuals "are not made that way". Without some semblance of a starting point, there's not much else I can do than say it over and over.

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter . . . .

. . . . But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks . . . .

. . . . female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing . . . You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males . . . .

. . . . female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success . . . "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female--if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success" . . . .

. . . . On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

National Geographic

_____________________

Notes:

• Conner, Randy P.L. "Men-Women, Gatekeepers, and Fairy Mounds." Parabola, Spring 2000.
• Stephen, Chris. "Startled marines find Afghan men all made up to see them". Scotsman.com, May 24, 2002. See http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=561752002&tid=1
• Owen, James. "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate". NationalGeographic.com, July 23, 2004. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html​

See Also:

• CNN/AP. "Lesbian Mom Appeals Decision Granting Child Custody To Convicted Killer Dad". LectLaw.com, February 3, 1996. See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur61.htm
• Sciforums. "The Gay Fray". See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39069
• Parabola. See http://www.parabola.org/
​

 

[Mystech]

Now the issue I have is that as long as homosexuality is considered a good thing, homosexuals will get braver and braver in their advances towards the same sex and for a straight guy as I am, I dread the day when acceptance is the norm.

Then I'm sure that you can appreciate how awkward it feels for us good looking gay guys to get hit on by straight women. It's a two way street and there's not much sense getting pissy about it, just put up and move on.

 

[laughing weasel]

It is always easy to come up with a reason to deny some one rights and then to hate them and torment them. You can say that those Indians are not really using this land so it is only natural that we put it to good use it is our destiny. Why should the Jews have all that money and power didn’t they kill Jesus (they must have really long life spans) they should all be rounded up and shot. Them darkies are upsetting the natural order and should keep their place maybe we should put on the sheets and teach them a lesson. Hatred has to be stopped and fought by every one Christian, atheist and pagan alike because it is the greatest threat to the American way. How would you feel if someone decided that you were not fit to be a parent because of one of your personal choices? I believe that homosexuality is a sin but that it is still a personal choice. Who are you that you would oppose god plan of free will? At what point does it stop being about protecting children and become about defending your faith. Who gets to decide whose faith is protected? I know that my faith is different from my mothers and ours is different from my brother in laws and my cousins it would frighten me greatly for someone to tell me who that I could sleep with. I will defend their rights because they are the same rights that I am willing to fight and die for myself.

 

[laughing weasel]

A gay person has hit on me. It is a bit creepy (do I look gay?). However, it is not a reason to deny them their rights. In the old days, all the insane and mentally retarded were locked in the same places. I think it is good that society has decided that different is not automatically bad.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Then I'm sure that you can appreciate how awkward it feels for us good looking gay guys to get hit on by straight women. It's a two way street and there's not much sense getting pissy about it, just put up and move on.

I understand how it must be. Look I do feel sorry for you, it isn't that I dont. I have just tried to explain that you will have to convince the majority and calling them homophobes and gay haters is not going to aid your cause anymore than me calling you a woman hater would get me any closer to learning dress sense from you (which no doubt you could teach me cos I am like well scruffy most of the time ).
Do you see?

peace

c20

 

[Tiassa]

I have just tried to explain that you will have to convince the majority and calling them homophobes and gay haters is not going to aid your cause anymore than me calling you a woman hater . . . .

Well, see, that's sort of the problem. The truth isn't very pleasant, and so the homophobes seek to deflect that unpleasantness elsewhere. It's actually symptomatic of conservative politics at present: the truth lends nothing toward what is right or wrong.

Legitimizing this form of coarse traditionalism--homophobia--is in itself offensive.

Fear? Hate? What should we call an opinion asserted with such ferocity as to challenge the United States Constitution on a matter of mere taste?

If not fear, why does one not want homosexuals around one's children?

If not hate, what should one call such a focused, passionate, and loathing response to fear?

Does it hurt someone's feelings to face the truth? One must wonder what about that truth is so miserable.

In the 1990s, the battle was over basic civil rights. It was kind of like the Drug War, wherein there were policies proposed that would have made the transmittal of such information as "how to save the life of someone who has overdosed on methamphetamine" would be felonious.

Imagine a doctor withholding information from a patient because the transmittal of that information might constitute "endorsement" of homosexuality. Imagine medical schools run according to the Bible. ("Stay out of the house until after sundown.")

Gays were compared to child molesters, animal rapists, and necrophiliacs. Anti-gay groups became so babblingly incoherent that they couldn't read a study straight. It was an abandonment of context to a perverse degree. It was the equivalent of saying that sickle-cell anemia was a reason to socially-engineer around dark skinned people. Certes, it was better than police raids and beatings, but we're still in a realm where we justify Jim Crow by saying it's better than slavery. Only a few people died, but for some reason outrage over the idea that someone was killed merely because they were gay is controversial.

The only thing nearly approaching the calls for the death penalty for American gays--from a "Christian"--I've ever seen are actually Christian propaganda teaching Seventh Day Adventists to fear the United Nations.

When a court would rather place a child in the custody of a convicted murderer/accused child molester rather than a lesbian, are we supposed to call it "logic"? What is praiseworthy about that degree of paranoia?

Civil unions, separate but equal? Strangely, a large movement was raised in a northeastern state to unseat a governor who tried that. Every time a hurdle is overcome, a new, arbitrary line is drawn. It's ridiculous.

When Congressional Republicans attempt to suspend due process, what should we call that?

Why is Justice blind unless she's peeking into one's bedroom?

This issue is so important that people are willing to do away with a cornerstone of American equality and freedom, Equal Protection? Is that really a rational thing to do?

To discriminate against two people because one of them is the wrong gender? How do you decide which one?

Quite simply, I just don't think you're in a position to demand people sugarcoat reality for you.

Remember: when you pass these laws and set these precedents, nothing changes for the homosexuals. When you amend the Constitution against Equal Protection, nothing changes for the homosexuals.

But everything changes for you, because you, too, will lose Equal Protection. That might not worry one who feels safe in their majority, but that ease would be myopic. All the homosexual side of the argument has to do is preserve Equal Protection and establish itself inside that circle. Gender is the irrefutable argument. The traditionalists, however ... is this really worth picking up the ball and going home over? Is what is at best a matter of taste really something to start undoing the Constitution over?

Why is it so important that Equal Protection under the law should be jettisoned?

What should I call that desire? It's irrational, unreasonable, indecent. Other words come to mind: paranoid, spiteful, superstitious, arrogant, dangerous, reckless, demeaning, profane. And speaking of the demeaning and profane, I'll skip listing those words.

Homophobic? Gay-hating? What else should we call it? What candy-coated shovelful of crap could possibly be so ambrosial as to rouse these glowering daylight dreamers to the rational?

What else should we call it?

Why do homophobes need a stroke job? Becaue they're petty enough to hurt people for not? ("Don't identify me according to my actions or I'll vote to exclude you from society!") If truth is on your side, why be afraid of it?

 

[c20H25N3o]

Hi Tiassa,

Thank you firstly for your patient responses. I appreciate I am not the easiest person to bear sometimes
The thing is I personally find the whole homosexual act to be a bit nasty. I do not want to take part in it. This does not mean that I do not appreciate that it is different for other people i.e. homosexuals, although it is hard to speak here without sounding like I am condemning people for doing things I myself do not.
This is without a doubt the hardest topic I have had to speak on and I am learning a great deal about myself as I do so I am glad you bear with me.
If you were to visit me in my house, I would not treat you any differently to anyone else. To do so would be wrong. This I know.
If you were to display anything sexual in my house in front of my children, I would have the same disdain for you as if a heterosexual couple did the same. Both acts would of course be wrong independant of the sexual bias.
If you encouraged me to try homosexuality I would be worried because you would not be respecting my own sexuality and I would think twice perhaps about inviting you again to my house because your motives in my eyes would be to coerce me into something that is a) Against my religion and b) Against my nature.
However if you were just my friend and wanted to eat and drink with me and do what adults do i.e chat, have a laugh, talk about work, kids blah blah then who would I be to tell you that you are not allowed to eat from some of the bowls that other people eat from in my house. If we were to show eachother mutual respect as friends then there is not even a question about equality.
In short you have convinced me in this context because you are my friend. Nothing actually needs to be said.
I guess I am agreeing that it seems unjust that the government would say that some may eat from all bowls and some may not. There, I have conceeded.

peace

c20

 

[c20H25N3o]

I truely do have trouble takeing gay rights discussions seriously. Maybe I'm the devil for this but I can't help it any more than gays can help being gays.

I see gay sex as sleazy, just as I see lots of forms of straight sex as sleazy, some I have engaged in myself and enjoyed and will do again. But I knew I was sleazy when I was doing it and I just embraced my sleaziness. I wouldn't get on a soapbox and demand in dead pan that I be free to go "2 in the pink, 1 in the stink" on drunk whores without being judged.
When gays make their plight for fair rights there's a sense like there is something wholesome about mansex, like they are righteous ethical saints, and it just seems funny to me. Wouldn't you agree that if jesus was banging dudes in the asshole his righteous preaching would have seemed weaker?
Not just dudes, if he was recieving rusty trombones from hot broads and spraying groupies with golden showers while making the heavy metal hand gesture and shakeing his tongue his words about being a better person just wouldn't have been as powerful.

You don't have to stalk the shadows of the dirtiest streets in town with a depraved smirk on your hard ugly face to be a sleazeball.
Indeed, the gay lovers in a committed relationship walking hand in hand with knitted sweaters tied around their clean pastel panted wastes through a beautifull park in the nicest suburb in town are still going to go home and explore eachother's shit pits, damaging their assholes and rendering their penii feculent all merely for the sake of their own sick perverted pleasure.

Actually, even perfect christian man and wife missionary style sex can get kind of nasty. And a pregnant woman should really have her eyes to the ground with shame and display a meek demeaner because we all know she was impaled like a pig by a big fat aroused penis, and pounded raw while she wailed like a whore.
I guess I'm saying no one should be acting righteous, because after they make their demands on that soapbox and pass their judgements of whoever or whatever they are unhappy with, a countdown is inevitably underway inside them to the next time they will go sit down and grunt a fat stinky hunk of feces out of their filthy grimey asshole.
We're all filthy fucking pigs. You can either live in shame huddled over or embrace your dirtbag self and laugh about it.

I don't hate gay people or think they should not be gay or stop partaking in their filthy wrong depraved sex lives.
I just think they should surrender to satan already and embrace the fact that they aren't angelic little blue eyed virgins who defecate heart candies from their perfect little wrinkle free pink assholes.
You can't get on a soap box with a butt plug firmly lodged in your keister, sorry, it just doesn't work.

I actually like this post. We are all animals. I agree. But, I cannot agree that sex should be a shameful thing when it is an act of love. I do love my wife and I like making love to her. It is a gentle art of giving,sharing, opening up, peeling back the layers, going where you know you are warm and loved. I see no shame in it. As someone once said to me "Heaven is a blessed orgasm".
I cannot disagree.

peace

c20