crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Common sense says that in an overpopulated world like we live in, we need as many homosexuals as possible (or none reproducing people in general)...
this place is very hypocritical
- Thread starter Faggotcide
- Start date
- Status
DE
vote bnp
anonymousnick2001 said:
I'd hardly say I "wreaked havoc". I bumped about 5 threads from about the time I first registered as they were nostalgic, a 'memory' of SOT as it used to be, as everybody except you and some other whiny assholes agreed.
DE
vote bnp
DiscipleOfPlato
The Observer
Demiurge, I feel compelled to inquire, how would you categorize homosexuality as a deformity? Is there some undiscovered ecumenical paradigm for growth that indicates man is innately intended to be heterosexual? The way I view it is that a predilection for the same sex is a matter of PREFERENCE, not natural human development. It can be assimilated with one's taste for vanilla other than chocolate, juice other than coke, and so on. It's that simple. Under no frame of accurate scientific logic does it bear any link with "normal" biological traits, and deformities contrary to them. I've noticed that people tend to refer to homosexuality in a manner that blows the concept far out of proportion. It isn't a disease, it isn't a deformity, and it most certainly isn't a lifestyle. It's merely an alternative preference for the same sex. The preference of a minority, yes, but that doesn't give the minority any less of a right to encompass it.
And before you hurl the formulaic reproduction argument in my face, yes I do realize that it is impossible to breed and proliferate life with the same sex, which is precisely why we need MORE homosexuals, not less.
What has the ability to reproduce endowed us with, anyway? Well, there's Abortion, all because innumerable incompetent retards can't accomplish the simple task of using contraceptives or keeping their pants on, and overpopulation, because everybody reproduces illegitimately, and let us not forget famine, which is a subsequent effect of overpopulation. What is the ultimate outcome of all this reproduction? A plentiful surplus of inept morons and pricks waging war, resenting each other for frivolous reasons such ethnicity, doing drugs, having endless amounts of promiscuous sex, which in turn, spawns more who invariably continue the perpetual cycle of corruption. All because of this natural concept we call reproduction. And yet we as a whole still desire more, for reasons I'll never comprehend. Objectively as humanity, we could certainly use more sterile men and women, as well as homosexuals. If the prospect of somebody being gay vexes you, become a hermit.
One does not possess the right to bereave another of their civil rights as humans, nor to dictate how one should live (assuming that they are not causing legitimate harm to someone else, and by "legitimate" harm, I don't mean personal repugnance). It simply isn't acceptable within a PROPER democracy. Now if somebody is exhibiting their sexual orientation obnoxiously, that isn't acceptable either. Simply call him/her an attention-craving whore, and maybe they'll grasp your message and leave you alone.
As Speed previously articulated, homosexuality has existed since the beginnings of recorded history. It's nothing new, so stop being a whiny fag and get over it.
And before you hurl the formulaic reproduction argument in my face, yes I do realize that it is impossible to breed and proliferate life with the same sex, which is precisely why we need MORE homosexuals, not less.
What has the ability to reproduce endowed us with, anyway? Well, there's Abortion, all because innumerable incompetent retards can't accomplish the simple task of using contraceptives or keeping their pants on, and overpopulation, because everybody reproduces illegitimately, and let us not forget famine, which is a subsequent effect of overpopulation. What is the ultimate outcome of all this reproduction? A plentiful surplus of inept morons and pricks waging war, resenting each other for frivolous reasons such ethnicity, doing drugs, having endless amounts of promiscuous sex, which in turn, spawns more who invariably continue the perpetual cycle of corruption. All because of this natural concept we call reproduction. And yet we as a whole still desire more, for reasons I'll never comprehend. Objectively as humanity, we could certainly use more sterile men and women, as well as homosexuals. If the prospect of somebody being gay vexes you, become a hermit.
One does not possess the right to bereave another of their civil rights as humans, nor to dictate how one should live (assuming that they are not causing legitimate harm to someone else, and by "legitimate" harm, I don't mean personal repugnance). It simply isn't acceptable within a PROPER democracy. Now if somebody is exhibiting their sexual orientation obnoxiously, that isn't acceptable either. Simply call him/her an attention-craving whore, and maybe they'll grasp your message and leave you alone.
As Speed previously articulated, homosexuality has existed since the beginnings of recorded history. It's nothing new, so stop being a whiny fag and get over it.
Plato, I think you hit on something, the mere fact that most likely those like Demiurge wish to push their ideas of how best to live on to others. This would explain the love for fascism, he and others like anonnick2001 are control freaks. I dont like gays, but I dont feel we as a society need to tell them how to go about their lives.
Actually I heard that most gays are born genetically predisposed to being gay- its not a choice, although for some Im sure it is a choice.
And despite this thread, most likely if with friends, I will make derogatory remarks about gay people, or concur with other derogatory remarks about gay people. I suppose it is some primal need to reaffirm my gender and sexuality. Actually I think it is some need to relate to the other supposedly non-gay male friends one has- nothing could be worse to find out that one of them is secretly gay. So, yes, I am a hypocrite, but at least i am honest.
Actually I heard that most gays are born genetically predisposed to being gay- its not a choice, although for some Im sure it is a choice.
And despite this thread, most likely if with friends, I will make derogatory remarks about gay people, or concur with other derogatory remarks about gay people. I suppose it is some primal need to reaffirm my gender and sexuality. Actually I think it is some need to relate to the other supposedly non-gay male friends one has- nothing could be worse to find out that one of them is secretly gay. So, yes, I am a hypocrite, but at least i am honest.
DiscipleOfPlato
The Observer
I'm just curious, would you sever any personal or emotional ties with another human being in the event that you discovered they were gay?
Also, the genetic predisposition theory seems like bullshit to me. Do you truly believe that there is some irrevocable biological genetic code for the fondness of same-sex genitalia? If a man prefers penis, are his genes to blame? Is anything to blame? Is it even worth contemplating the very notion of placing blame for something so trivial?
lord667
=UM=Heartburn
DiscipleOfPlato said:
I'm very rusty here, but I believe homosexuality is sometimes regarded as a developmental misfire. There is apparently a short period in the late pre-teen/early teen years where children have strong, non-sexual "contact impulses" towards members of their own sex - the horseplay drive, in other words. If that clashes with the development of the sex drive, homosexuality can be the result (this is probably a distortion of the actual theory; I only read it once, about seven years ago). Something almost certainly has to be to blame, whether it's the genes or the environment or gays on TV.
As for whether it's woth trying to find the cause - only so long as anti-gay folk insist on supporting their opinion by calling it "unnatural", or maintaining that gays don't deserve the same protection as women or blacks because it's "their choice". Beyond that strand of argument, it's little more than a small curiosity.
Well I think i heard this shit on tv or the newspaper about the genetic predisposition to be gay. I am like you, I tend not to believe in this predeterminism, but this is off-topic and could be a lengthy discussion we have already sort of had on this board.
As for the other comment Plato, no I would not sever ties, In fact I was forced to share a room with a openly gay man for a whole summer( well there were three of us- two heteros and him) I got along wonderfully with him, despite my initial apprehensions about the whole situation.
What i was trying to get at is, despite the fact I am tolerant, I think it is somehow natural that heterosexual people will feel a need to proclaim their sexuality amongst friends and to gay people they may know. Unfortunately as is always the case with people that are unlike one, these proclamations ususally lead to derogatory remarks etc. So, I suppose I am somewhat defending demiurge and anonnicks prejudices.
As for the other comment Plato, no I would not sever ties, In fact I was forced to share a room with a openly gay man for a whole summer( well there were three of us- two heteros and him) I got along wonderfully with him, despite my initial apprehensions about the whole situation.
What i was trying to get at is, despite the fact I am tolerant, I think it is somehow natural that heterosexual people will feel a need to proclaim their sexuality amongst friends and to gay people they may know. Unfortunately as is always the case with people that are unlike one, these proclamations ususally lead to derogatory remarks etc. So, I suppose I am somewhat defending demiurge and anonnicks prejudices.
Demiurge
This user has no title
speed said:
I see no problem with telling people how to live. My objective isn't to maintain rights, which are inherently legalistic. Governments always tell people how to live, and with good reason.
The second paragraph means nothing. It's not at all related to what I said. Perhaps you should try reading my commentary. If you do, you'll find that I was commenting on a current problem. At no point did I attempt to compare to the past.
Demiurge
This user has no title
lord667 said:
note that deformity is always used negatively. for example, a club foot is a deformity. an unusual ability to solve mathematical problems is not.
Demiurge
This user has no title
this one's directed at disciple of plato.
I was about to use an argument explaining that the purpose of sex is to reproduce. However, you seem to have cut it off. I agree in principle that the breeding of humans is getting out of hand. You also reached that conclusion, but then you got lost. The answer isn't homosexuality, it's eugenics. People need to adopt more intelligent sexual practices.
The idea that it's "preference" is patently absurd. It is, like other traits, a result of a person's genetics and experience.
I'm puzzled by attempts to use civil rights as objective rules of physics. The do not exist outside of the legal definitions of a given society. The idea that they exist, and everyone has to read 'em and weep is bizarre to say the least. They can most certainly be changed.
I was about to use an argument explaining that the purpose of sex is to reproduce. However, you seem to have cut it off. I agree in principle that the breeding of humans is getting out of hand. You also reached that conclusion, but then you got lost. The answer isn't homosexuality, it's eugenics. People need to adopt more intelligent sexual practices.
The idea that it's "preference" is patently absurd. It is, like other traits, a result of a person's genetics and experience.
I'm puzzled by attempts to use civil rights as objective rules of physics. The do not exist outside of the legal definitions of a given society. The idea that they exist, and everyone has to read 'em and weep is bizarre to say the least. They can most certainly be changed.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Well demiurge you are one interesting guy, apparently the idea of indivdual freedom of western civilzation was lost to your hegelian defense of the all powerful eternal state.
The problem is, that no one but Bush and Sharon share your views on most things; even if the state had all the power, these views of yours are shared by such a small fraction of the population, that they will never be put into place. I suppose like Wagner you could buy some isolated land in South AMerica and start some dreamlike fascist society where everyone bows down to the glory of the state, and your ideals. Yet, this leads to a problem, if your ideal government would ever come to power, would they share your personal ideals? What if they outlawed death metal- and have a bonfire of the vanities like old Hitler did, where they threw in death metal etc.? I think in our hearts we are all fascists, just that most understand the horror of being a slave on the receiving end. Apparently you secretly wish to be a slave, and subservient, because lets face it, in fascism very very few people have any power, and I doubt you are a officer in the military or the leader of some huge mulitnational corporation?
The problem is, that no one but Bush and Sharon share your views on most things; even if the state had all the power, these views of yours are shared by such a small fraction of the population, that they will never be put into place. I suppose like Wagner you could buy some isolated land in South AMerica and start some dreamlike fascist society where everyone bows down to the glory of the state, and your ideals. Yet, this leads to a problem, if your ideal government would ever come to power, would they share your personal ideals? What if they outlawed death metal- and have a bonfire of the vanities like old Hitler did, where they threw in death metal etc.? I think in our hearts we are all fascists, just that most understand the horror of being a slave on the receiving end. Apparently you secretly wish to be a slave, and subservient, because lets face it, in fascism very very few people have any power, and I doubt you are a officer in the military or the leader of some huge mulitnational corporation?
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
lord667
=UM=Heartburn
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
Dude, I was, um, joking. Although I must say that your pattern of lol, lol, made it seem like you were bent on bothering people more than actually feeling the nostalgia. Just an observation.Darkness Eternal said:
Agreed.lord667 said:
DE
vote bnp
Demiurge
This user has no title
speed said:
the system is a means to an end. the government is right only if it is right, that it is a government changes nothing. you've gone off on a tangent.
it would be like me asking "what if your democracy became so liberal that there were no rules and apocalyptic warriors raped your mother?" ridiculous
Life Sucks
and then you die
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
- Status
Similar threads
