You don't have to be gay to take it up the ass. Look at inmates.
You don't have to be gay to take it up the ass. Look at inmates.
DB_Hunter, 83 years old, last survivor on Earth: "Well I'm standing here on a cliff surrounded by water in the middle of what I think is the Atlantic Ocean. The entire world has been blown to smithereens by bombs, there isn't any food, not any drinkable water, no widescreen TV with bad adultery on them, no people, not anything. FUCKING GAY PEOPLE! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!"
This has been a joke "sort-of" from Terra entertainment stating the hilarity of being concerned about what gayness will bring to the end of the world when there are about 2914891284 issues that are more important - and also definitely more dangerous - when it comes to the planet's survival. Such as the long-awaited ban on canned shrimps. CANNED SHRIMPS WTF!! YOU CAN'T EAT THAT!
SEX!!!!1111
Also I updated my signature with a quote that DB uttered when I visited his home last night and attempted to change his abyssmal view on society (I think I succeeded)
The way I look at it religion will always hate gay people, gay people will always hate religion, and I will sit on the side lines with a tub of popcorn and watch the insanity insue. Granted I will be switching to the middle east on occasion, it's a classic i can't miss.
On average I would guess that gay people don't hate religion as much as religious people might hate gays. This is mere arm chair philosophy but it seems reasonable that lots of gay people might still believe in God (since I don't know how non-monotheistic religions treat homosexuality at all please assume i'm only talking about followers of the three). Anyway, contrary to what many bible thumpers believe you can be a good and god fearing person and still be attracted to members of your own gender. However, my extremely religious friend put it rather eloquently on night while we were having one of our arguments.
He essentially said that even if homosexuality (defined as being sexually attracted to members of the oppisate sex) is a property of people and thus not something you can 'choose' you can still choose not to partake of sexual activity if it violates the rules of God. This hit me pretty hard because it made sense as a way to justify seeing it as a choice while still raging against it. If you don't want to have sex with a woman (that you're married to), then don't have sex at all. It's pretty much the same message as what most religious groups send at youth, sex outside the proper social norms is a no no and is wrong. Unfortunately people don't seem to have figured this out and whine and complain about homosexual activity as if it's somehow more of an afront than underage or premarital sex. If people don't want to be hypocrites about their beliefs then they should take both equally serious.
As for the environment, my gut instinct is less people is better in general so low birth rate is good, but I'd rather it was a global low birth rate than only in a certain area. Of all the cultures I prefer Western (aka American) culture the best pretty much just b/c I'm a part of it, and that's enough for me. I do see merits in most other cultures and plenty of things wrong with the one I live in, but all in all I don't think I'd want to live any other way (though some societies look like they might not be so bad to live in from birth, Oh Canada...).
Lets get a few things straight though before I continue, as some people seem confused with what I am trying to say.
1. All Gays DO NOT = Paedophiles, just like all hetros DO NOT = Pedophiles
2. Gays are not the root cause of the problems societies face.
3. Its people acting on an individualistic level to do whatever makes them happy that is the problem.
4. I am predicting that Pedophillia will be legalised due to arguments based on point 3. It is already starting to happen, as highlighted in the article linked to in my last post. Hence point 3 is the crux of the issue.
Rubbish. This is the kind of assumption that causes people to blindly support gays AND blindly hate gays, depending on which side you are on.Originally Posted by complich8
People are not born knowing how to have sex, they just want to have sex when they hit puberty and onwards. How they have sex depends on what they learn from their surroundings.
Anyway, my point wasn't supposed to be gay centric. I was debating individualism and the concept of sexual freedom vis a vis their impact on society, but it seems a lot of people are too hung up about homosexuality to have a proper discussion.
That article only pointed out the fact not all offenders get sentences harsh enough due to (unforgivable) practical issues like the prison system not having enough money to accommodate anybody else but murderers and such.
However, human rights are a pretty big issue altogether right now, and child abuse is right there at the top. Active pedophiles are hunted down all the time, and hardly a week goes by without news of some ring being busted by the police somewhere. Legislation and general awareness have also developed greatly during the recent 20 or so years. Of course partly due to the Net being such a perfect tool for the sickos, which required new means of fighting against it.
Problems with the prison system are still a long way from legalising serious crimes...
I agree, it is a long way off. The thing is why has it got to such a state where the prison system is full? It sure hasn't got a linear link to population growth, so it can't be said that the number of prisoners are rising because there are more people (hence proportionally the prisoner levels are the same). My argument is that its the values that society holds which is causing these problems.
That said, in the UK there have been instances where once an offence becomes widespread it is eventually legalised. These tend to be the non-violent ones which also do not involve theft, but everything else seems to be up for grabs. There just seems to be an attitude to sweep problems under the carpet by legalising them, such as prostitution, drugs etc.
For your consideration: (US statistics)
Prison populations by primary (most serious) offense:
violent crime -- 52%
drug crimes -- 20%
property-related charges (vandalism, theft) -- 21%
(source: usdoj.gov)
Substantial portions of violent crime are probably property-related or drug-related (the stereotypical crack-addict knocking off a liquor store, for example). Didn't run into any stats on that.
Via usdoj:
Prisoners drug charges by charge family:
Trafficking: 97.5%
Possession: 2.1%
The remainder is there for "other drug offenses".
Trafficking is apparently quite a lucrative market to be in, considering it accounts for pretty close to 1/5 of us prison populations. On the other hand, "general trafficking" (70% of prosecutions) is charged for anyone in possession of more than a certain amount, whether they intended to use it themselves or sell it. Judging intents is difficult, and a lot of trafficking charges might actually be simple possession.
By drug (from the same source), trafficking is statistically
Marijuana: 30%
Cocaine: 30%
Crack: 15%
Methamphetamine: 15%
Opiates (heroin, opium and morphine in particular): 6.7%,
Hallucinogens, others: 3%
Violent crime is by far the biggest piece of the pie though.
Discuss.
As a staunch Neo-Platonic/Straussian/Stoic, I condemn all homosexual acts, except ones between females.
It's not true Europe's population is dwindling!!!! It's just being replaced by the very frisky muslim minority.
MmmMmm. Ooiiishiii
Right on!!
Haha that view allways makes me laugh.
man + man = omg tis zee devils work, stone them quickly D:<!!!! they are responsible for all the problems with society!!!
woman + woman = get the popcorn out lads, /wank.
DB_Hunter you need to get a grip mate. Seriously.
You know one of the most interesting documentaries on this subject i have seen was a test on male sexual arousal. (think it was on channel 4 on scottish tv, i'll see if i can find it on the net)
200ish 'straight' men were given a questionare on thier thoughts on homosexuality. they ended up with 50 who by thier answers were pretty homophobic (it was bad etc) and 50 who didnt mind either way, basically thought it was personal choice but not for them.
The most interesting part was when they sat the men in a little room with some kind of electrode on thier genitals to moniter sexual arousal and then showed them images of men, and basically gay porn.
A high number of the 'homophobic' lads got rather exited while watching it, but very few of the 'dont mind' showed any interest.
You know what that says to me? And what your reaction to terra's thread says?
Get out of the closet mate, you know your gay really.
Oh and terra? Grats, i hope he was hot
Maybe they just liked the electrodes and the hot, young nurse who installed them... >_>
@sairaine: I've heard of similar studies before but I don't put as much stock into them because physical arousal experienced in temporal proximity to an act does not indicate any desire or willingness towards participation in that act(as many convicted date rapists might attest).
I feel that determining attraction objectively is a pretty tough thing to do, on one hand, you can't really trust people not to lie in order to fit within social standards (even lying to themselves). On another any test that doesn't involve input from the conscious mind seems like it would be insufficient to indicate attraction, since you usually have to be consciously aware in some way that you are attracted to something for it to mean much to you.
Sairane:
Mate.. a Channel 4 documentary? Is that what supports your theory?
Channel 4... the channel whose own founding cheif executive condemned it by saying it has an "obsession with adolescent transgression and sex''?
Channel 4, who wanted to run a series of programmes entitled 'Wank Week'?
Channel 4, who arranged for a Masterbat-a-thon to be filmed in London in August last year?
Channel 4, who has broadcast shows such as 'Penis Week' and 'Designer Vagina's'?
Seriously man... at least use a credible source to back up your theories.
Besides, EVEN IF this documentary was accurate (fair, balanced etc), my view is that homosexuality is conceptual, and therefore a choice. So there is no contradiction if there is a situation where someone gets excited and says that they believe it is wrong. That's like me saying using violence is not the way to get someone to agree with you, even if I feel like giving them a slap for being an idiot. And then again, you could also have the reasons Yukimura outlined above regarding lying to conform to social norms.
You can refer to me as 'man' when i grow a penis, k?
I'll admit that channel 4 isnt the most credible source (cant remember if it even was 4 tbh) but i was just using it as an example to put across my opinion ^^
hmm. Personally i think that someone is gay if they are attracted to the same gender, regardless of whether they actually consider themself to be or not.So there is no contradiction if there is a situation where someone gets excited and says that they believe it is wrong. That's like me saying using violence is not the way to get someone to agree with you, even if I feel like giving them a slap for being an idiot.
I also dont think that your example is valid in this case. Try again
@kraco
Haha could be
This thread disturbs me. However I must say...
"Originally Posted by SK
I condemn all homosexual acts, except ones between females"
Hell the F yeah!
We are getting into to technicalities now. For me a person would be "officially" gay if they commit a homosexual act. Having 'feelings' towards the same gender could be a phase someone is going through.
But I would agree with you in the sense that humans are not robots, and that emotions are linked to their actions. So if a person thinks they are gay they will probably end up doing a gay act, if they do not change their thinking.
Well, that's were us, the women from the Porn for Women Liberation Front, come in.
Whenever any male says that homosexual acts are disgusting, we'll be there to mention how much he likes lesbian porn!
Whenever any male says that homoerotic porn is disgusting, we'll be there to say "Actually, it's pretty hot"!
Whenever there's some dude in a series or anime that you might think it's cool, we'll be there to write slash fanfiction and draw porny fanart!
(Note: I don't condone the last one as yaoi fangirls are detestable, but hey, it was kinda due.)
i firmly disagree with the idea that homosexuality is simply a choice or something that you 'decide' or are raised to become. Like most things, I believe there are parts of behavior that are influenced by uncontrollable aspects: brain chemistry, height. Then there are things that how one's raised create, nurture: being raised with only sisters.
Take a fat person. Now, why are they fat? Well, some people simply have it in their genes that their bodies crave and store fat more readily than other people. But what about people who are simply never raised to eat healthy? What about a combo of those two? I think alot of behavior and 'lifestyle' attributes are due to both kinds of influences.
i also totally second sairane's point. It's bogus for people to reject one half of homosexual pairings and celebrate the other. and never insult yaoi fangirls, i know someone who is a yaoi fangirl!!!1
and, on a final note, i believe mankind needs more homosexuality. I think overpopulation will be a huge problem in the future, and the less reproducing the average person does is a good thing in my eyes. Homosexuals are actually performing a great service for society! (although indirectly...)
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
