HOME | DD
Nekromanda — Stamp: Frustrated Stamp #5543509
Published: 2012-10-31 04:59:40 +0000 UTC; Views: 5317; Favourites: 402; Downloads: 25
Redirect to original
Description
Today's been an emotional day. :/ Trying to get tea-party family members to TALK to me instead of just linking me to articles talking about "Why a good person can vote against same sex marriage ". Just frustrating.Edit: Thought I'd add - several people have made a good point about natural vs unnatural not being very important. As humans, we practice both natural and unnatural behaviors. So! Just thought I'd add that! Thanks to those who mentioned it!
Related content
Comments: 165
oh, really? homosexuality is seen in hundreds of animals, while homophobia is seen in just one. it's natural, get over it.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
First point. Yeah it’s seen as an abnormal.
Secound point. Animals have no concept for sex outside or breeding so if two male animals having what looks to us like sex they in fact would be doing it for other reasons.
Thrid reason. Let’s pretend for a second that the first two points aren’t true and that it’s “natural” for two males in the animal kingdom to (for no good reason) to have sex. Well it’s also natural for animals to force themselves on an unwilling mate,cannibalize their own and for some to drink pee. Should we humans start doing those as well since it’s supposedly natural?
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I think in the beginning hetro was meant to be bc the population was shit low and it was NEEDED for survival of our species. and so it was the first natural thing. (which is what I think of when I hear "hetro is normal/natural")
but now that we're so well established and not going extinct any time soon, we can branch out and have other relationships outside the established norm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed but what about bisexuals? lmao
Yea sexuality is genetic so yep it's natural
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As well as pansexuals and asexuals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly.
If people actually bothered to learn more of this topic, lots of the time people don't choose to have non-heterosexual sexualities-like homosexual, pansexual, etc. Just like transgender, it is how your mind/body responds/feels. For example, if you are heterosexual, you are attracted to the opposite gender. If you are homosexual, you attracted to the same gender. There is over 2000 species that are homosexual, which just helps to prove that it is completely natural. Another example is that with natural/unnatural reasoning, it should mean people who don't find babies or toddlers cute should be unnatural. Just like humans are normally hardwired to be homosexual, most humans are hardwired to find the head-body ratio (with head being bigger), big eyes, etc. attractive so that we automatically want to take care of them. However, people still don't find baby and toddlers cute (like my brother even), yet are THEY called unnatural? No. So why should non-straight people be considered unnatural?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I agree with everything, but it's not possible to be pansexual. We are not attracted to a person, but to the two hormones they produce (testosterone and estrogen). Some people are attracted to only one of them, some are attracted to both. Since there are only two hormones we can be attracted to, the correct term is bisexual, not pansexual.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What if you are attracted to an inanimate, abiotic object?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay before getting butthurt about this know that I am an ally of gays and gay rights, I just care more about science.
No it's not natural. Yes it's an abnormality.
But so what?
SO F*CKING WHAT if being gay is "unnatural".
So is being born long or near sighted, do you see everyone who needs glasses to see having their rights taken away as well? No?
Then as much as they'd like to claim they don't like gayness because it's unnatural, that's a lie. And we all know it.
We've developed society, we've overcome our misfortunes with technology. If someone loses an arm we don't just let them die, we build them a new arm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All sexualities are natural. Why can't people accept that?
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
If homosexuality is an unnatural sexuality, it means all sexualities, you are not born into it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I read somewhere that about over 2000 species of animals are homosexual
And about 1 species (human) is homophobic. Being homosexual is very natural.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
actually tbh, when animals are horny they'll grind anything that moves. or doesn't... Animals aren't the greatest examples. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And not to mention that "phobia" is defined as being an irrational fear and quite a few phobias are considered maladaptive disorders.
So based in that logic, homophobia should be considered a disorder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I love you too, Kingrievous."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Natural? The purpose of that collection of functions is procreation. If you can use said practices to produce viable offspring, I'll concede that point.
I require a more reasoned collection of points to be convinced of any argument. Curious how proponents of non-viable sexuality forms are big on appeals to emotion, and short on reasoned frameworks to support thier arguments. It;s like a game of 'Logical fallacy Bingo' when they try to make their arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Gay and bi people can still reproduce, unless they are infertile. What stops someone for having sex with someone of the opposite sex, even if they don't like it? I know a lot of gays that had kids
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This comment is so weak im Laughing
thanks to technology, there are new ways to make children other than sex. For girls, you can make sperm from bone marrow or adopt. For guys you can ask a female friend to donate an egg so that he can get it fertalized in a specialized clinic or adopt.
Also, i guess infertile couples arent aloud to be together according to your "logic". So as asexual couples. Really you need to do your research smh smh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You expected an argument like that to fly? For all of that, it still requires a sperm and an ovum to produce viable offspring, when it comes down to it, and the acts that do not deliver the sperm to the ovum are pointless from a biological perspective.
"allow"? People may DO as they please, to a point, but the only thing I will not "Allow" is for you all to lie about it. Just as with your specious argument. The POINT of the procedure is to produce offspring, weather or not the couples do so. If they CAN'T, it's pointless. Showboating. Playing "Let's Pretend". It hardly merits validation. Infertile couples included.
Keep dancing around the issue if you like, the simple fact is that form follows function.
("Asexual couples". You accuse me of comedy? And not doing homework, then use a phrase like that? Really.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
("Asexual couples". You accuse me of comedy? And not doing homework, then use a phrase like that? Really.)
Asexual simply means that someone is not sexually attracted to anyone. It does not mean that they can't get married, date, be attracted romantically to other people, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So it has absolutely nothing to do with attraction or a desire of consensual love and affection? It's only about procreation? By that logic, infertility/menopause aren't natural either. Except they are.
and not every couple wants kids anyway. A lot of couples just want to be together.
Also, this is the 21st century. We have things like artificial insemination and surrogate mothers for people who can't normally have kids of their own.
And really, with the massively growing world population AND all the children out there who have no families or homes of their own, do we really need to add more kids into the equation? No one really seems to think about the poor kids already out there in these gay rights/abortion arguments, but deserve need families just like everyone.
There you go.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Disingenuous. affection and love are part of the proccess, obviously, but the goal is procreation, also obviously. You try to separate them, but they are clearly part of the same natural function. Trying to lump infertility (which has no survival value), and menopause (which is a natural function of the reproductive cycle in the female, specifically it's conclusion) into the mix shows you are dishonestly trying to confuse the issue, or are confused yourself.
A couple that may have kids but chooses not to still has that OPTION, obviously. If they truly just want to be together, there's no point in getting married. Power of attourney will serve the legal purposes as well or better than marriage in terms of legality. The rest is just showboating, without offspring. Playing house. Do what you will, but the purpose of that whole phenomena IS reproduction, wheather one chooses to pursue it or not.
We do indeed have more ways to get the sperm and the egg together than we previously did. However, it STILL requires a sperm and an egg.
We do indeed have overpopulation. That is indeed a problem, but it is immaterial to this discussion. There are various ways to deal with that, that do not include lying about reproduction, or human sexual functions and thier purposes.
If I had 10c for every logical fallacy i've seen used to prop up this whole dubious collection of arguments, I'd be rolling in a Porche. Literally. And you'd be contributing $1.10 to the fund.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
yeah 7 fuckin billion people in the world, almost a quarter of them children who are starving and don't have homes and will be dead before they reach adulthood anyway 
seriously, you're fuckin stupid if you think the only point of sex, is to make babies, and more importantly if you think having a child = love. because it doesn't 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your insolence is pointless. Saying that the point of sex is reproduction, is not the same as saying people should overpopulate. The point of the 'reproductive processes' is, in fact, to 'reproduce'. You CAN do other things with it, but those things are not what the human organism was DESIGNED to do. You can rub your private areas against anything that flops, swims, crawls, or spawns in rotten meat, but that doesn't mean the behavior is valid. It merely means you're more likely to catch hepatitis, not that the behavior has any real use. If I am bigoted, then so is science, and reality. Good luck fighting those. Well, science can - and has - been bought off, but reality, not so much. Anyone who reads your writing can clearly see you suffer from some mental/behavioral/ (developmental?) disorders, hysteria not the least of them, and should probably talk to a shrink, not practicing juvenile invective online.
If, on the other hand you need a lesson in manners, we can step on over to World of Warcraft, and I can enjoy the 30 seconds it would take to grind your character into a smoking pile of ash. You know, if you feel like backing up all of your big talk. (Cowards usually don't)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
yes, because WoW totally teaches etiquette xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
awww you're butthurt :3 cute. you know what- i don't even have a reaction to your ignorance and stupidity~ soooo yeah XD bye loser.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hmm, fair points and all, but here's my question for you.
Who are you to decide what's right and wrong? What's natural and unnatural? Who on Earth are you to decide what is morally justifiable and what isn't?
Answer: You're one person who thinks they're smarter than everyone.
Homosexuality occurs in over 1,500 animal species along with humans, including other mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, arachnids, and even some species of parasitic flatworms. Not only do they engage in homosexual sex, they actually form homosexual pair-bonds. Studies done on these creatures in nature has actually shown that homosexual pair-bonding animals have a greater chance of protecting offspring. You think one female hyena or male goose is bad? Try two.
Male penguins even adopt abandoned eggs and raise them together, providing them with extra warmth during the winters in Antarctica. When that's done, they'll work together to raise the chick to adulthood. Don't believe me? Look up gay penguins in Kent Zoo.
But back to your points. If you can even call them points.
So, you're saying that the purpose of human pair-bonding is reproduction. Alright, fair enough in that regard, two people get together, they have children, raise them into adulthood to do the same. A sound conclusion.
But what about the other aspects of human relationships? Consensual love, trust, comfort in times of hardship, social support, someone who you've asked to spend the rest of your life with. Are you telling me none of these are as important as procreation? It's only about having kids? You say you acknowledge it, but then you brush it to the side without acknowledging it.
There's no point in getting married if you don't want kids? What kind of sense does that make? Marriage is a recognition of the relationship, it's going out and saying to your friends, family, the state, your religion, and the world that you are with this other person and nobody can take that from us. It also means you can get a lot of assistance from the government concerning welfare and taxes. Yeah, true, a lot of marriages don't last, but that's more about the people not being as compatible as they thought, rather than a fact about marriage itself.
For that matter, sex is not only about reproduction. Yeah, sure, we're built to procreate, but that doesn't mean everyone is obligated to. There are a lot of other factors about sex beyond reproduction: mutual trust, a sense of bonding, it helps your immune system, lowers blood pressure, provides a form of exercise, eases stress, helps with sleep, and lowers your risks of getting heart disease or prostate cancer. It helps couples find a mutual ground for them, a romantic bond that we need.
You've also yet to explain parentless children. If married couples need to have kids to be legit (like they seem to need to do in your mind) do these kids not deserve families? What about people who are legitimately infertile or sterile for a number of reasons? What about old couples who can't have children? Do they not deserve the same rights as fertile heterosexual couples who want kids? I'm not the one using flawed logic, I'm just just taking what I've read out of your comment.
But even putting all that aside, what do we have from this conversation? We don't have an argument against homosexuality, we have an argument against people getting married because they don't want children. You act all high and mighty, but you haven't made any good point.
And don't try to say overpopulation is immaterial, because that is a huge factor in the scenario. We have a climbing population of 7.159 billion on Earth today, with the population of the United States alone to reach 400 million by 2050. Do we really need more children when hundreds of thousands are already here, but nobody's watching out for them? They deserve families of their own, and just bringing more kids into the world isn't going to help.
If I had a nickel for every narrow-minded, egotistical, opinionated, logic-free comment I've ever read trying to undermine a minority group of people, I could by the Hawaiian island of Oahu. No joke.
How about you reevaluate your own logic before you decide to call someone else's flawed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A classic example of textbook rhetoric. Instead of looking for the truth of the matter and clearly defining it, you are defending a position using the standard collection of appeals to sympathy and ad prop ergo propter hoc. This alone is sufficient proof that you yourself do not believe your arguments, you are merely trying to decieve everyone into ignoring the weaknesses of your standpoints. It is largely pointless to try to convince such a person, because they have no respect for truth, only the desire to win, which has no place in drawing clear conclusions.
I'm defining an issue. You brought the concept of right and wrong into it. Define them yourself, if you like. It's your baggage. We can settle up on right and wrong AFTER the issues are all defined properly, a task in which you are deliberately not helping. Predictably.
The existence of a disorder in any given species does not make it other than a disorder. Any maladaptive sexual behavior that produces no viable offspring is useless biologically. There was a large rabbit in my old neighborhood that tried to get it on with cats and dogs over there. No offspring was produced. No biological value. Surely that at least is obvious.
I did look up the homo penguins. Found an interesting video of 2 of them raping and torturing a baby chick. I'll research this issue further, but I rather suspect, given the Aetology of nuerosis, that maladaptive sexual behaviors do not have ultimately biologically viable effects. But it's a study that can be researched further.
Your main point seems to be that these bahaviors can be separated and treated as individual cases, to be analyzed separately and in one for one relation to each other, once one digs past all the snark, that is. My main point is the exact opposite, that the behavors in question are part of an overall pattern of behavior, survival of the species. Which includes reproduction, which includes the emotional bonding associated with it, and all the physilogical and chemical changes that take place during the proccess.If you take reproduction out of the equation, the rest of the behaviors become moot. Men can take all the breastfeeding courses available, become certified breastfeeders, and get a nice shiny certificate saying so, but have none of the equipment needed to perform said act, and are therefore performing an empty act, without any hope of ever accomplishing this task. Futility. Getting a marriage license without any actual possibility of reproducing is also pointless. You can do it, but it's empty. No one is stopping anmyone from going through the motions, but no one should to be decieved that it's anything other than an empty act. An imitation. Feelings are fine, but by themselves they're not really any reason to get married. They can be indulged in without the pretense of biological viability. Marriage is part of the reproductive proccess, not separate from it. Until we can agree on that point, the definition of marriage that includes reproduction, we have found the irreducable point in this conversation. We cannot proceed until terms of use can be agreed upon.
Sex IS for producing children. The rest of the effects are side effects, not the main point. By. Definition. Flowery language about the social acceptability of relationships notwithstanding. Sociology as a science is utterly subject to biology. That's another point we don't seem to agree on.
Overpopulation is pointless for this conversation, as we are DEFINING the TERMS. Unless you are saying that imitation marriages should be allowed, in order to allow surrogate family units to those children who do not have any family unit? You could do that, but you could also do that without calling it "marriage", also. Since it's an approxiation, not the real thing. Which view would assume that de facto "nontraditional families" are not harmful to the kids, a subject that has been hotly debated for some time by both sides of the issue. But since I think maladaptive sexual responses are functionally a disorder, my opinion is obviously against such a thing.
Married couples should at least have the ability to have kids, or it is indeed a pointless excercise. That is indeed my view. You got that one thing right, anyway.
You think having kids is a "right"? It is a responsability, and a heavy one. And one does not "deserve" rights, they are earned, or they are given. "rights" are also a separate topic, and one I strongly suspect we do not agree on either. It shgould be decided weather nontraditional couples are afflicted with a disorder or not, before inflicting thier presence on impressionable children. I would think that would be obvious as well.
You thought I was detracting your logic? I was clarifying your definitions, your standpoint, your use of logical fallacies, and your overall frame of reference. Your logic was fine, your facts were not, therefore your conclusions are in error. Perhaps you ought to actually figure out what's being said before you decide to get on your high horse.
"a minority". That's cute. Playing the "victim" card, are we? You are going to do your semiliterate best to twist this argument into a game of value judgements, instead of clearly stating your case, and applying reason to the issues, and coming to honest conclusions. Not surprising, really.
"narrowminded, opinionated, egotistical, yada yada yada". You brought all that mess, not me. It tells me more about you than you probably want people to know. You want to argue. I want to clarify some points. Your little opinion means nothing to me, as you have yet to demonstrate a sufficient depth of character to imply valid value judgemental capacity. Feel free to prove me wrong - if you can. Meantime, if we are going with passive aggressive personal insults, it solves nothing and wastes my time. We can step on over to World of Warcraft, if that's all you got.
And that's another 90c, btw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know what? I can understand believing that marriage should be about procreation, even if I don't believe that's the case myself. You're allowed to have an opinion in that regard, it's understandable. You wan to believe that? Fine, I really don't care.
You can put words in my mouth and twist what I said through your views on everything, so it comes across as though I'm insulting you and wasting your time. You can call me out on saying things I did not say. You can harass me, insult me, call me names, whatever. I don't give a crap about what someone who uses anonymity on the internet as a shield thinks of me, because frankly, you could be a child just trying to get under my skin. I don't care about that either.
But then you go and you say something like this:
"The existence of a disorder in any given species does not make it other than a disorder. Any maladaptive sexual behavior that produces no viable offspring is useless biologically. There was a large rabbit in my old neighborhood that tried to get it on with cats and dogs over there. No offspring was produced. No biological value. Surely that at least is obvious."
"A disorder." That is where I draw the line.
That line of thinking was debunked back in the twentieth century, and rightful so. Homosexuality, along with Bisexuality, Asexuality, Pansexuality, as well as Transgender, Genderqueer, Intersex, Genderfluid, all those other wonderful folk do not have something wrong with them.
(Homosexual: attraction to people of the same sex.
Bisexual: attraction to both males and females.
Asexual: a lack of attraction to anyone.
Pansexual: attraction to people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Transgender: a blanket term for people whose gender identity differs from the one assigned them at birth. They may be born male but come to understand themselves as female, or they may be born female but come to understand themselves as male.
Cisgender: someone whose gender identity matches that they were assigned at birth.
Genderqueer: a blanket term for people who do not identify as either male or female, though not necessarily as a third gender either. That can be the case for some, but not for everyone.
Intersex: Someone who either physically or genetically falls somewhere in-between male or female. Not to be confused with hermaphrodite, which is often used as a very offensive slur.
Gender identity differs from sexual orientation in that people identify as a differing gender, but they still exhibit the same range of feelings that Cisgender people do.)
The fact that some people still consider all these people to have some kind of disorder is the kind of stuff I am tired of seeing in this world. Not only because it's wrong, but none of it makes any sense. Every single argument is full of backward logic, stereotyping, and outright lies spread by dumb people. They never take the time to analyze the lack of logic in their arguments.
They say these feelings are choice, but they never think "say, that must mean that my feelings toward women are a choice too." Nobody chooses their sexual feelings, and if they did, why would anyone choose to be gay, bi, etc., in a society where they can be stigmatized for their sexuality? Sure, pursuing those feelings is a choice, but does anybody ever choose to fall in love with someone? We don't have that kind of control over ourselves.
Throughout history, LGBTQPIA people have been blamed for all kinds of social ills. Earthquakes, Famines, Plagues, hurricanes, droughts. Even today, they get blamed for things like AIDS, Pedophilia, higher suicide rates, etc. Recently, a member of the Spanish government blamed the country's economic issues on its acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriages.
How would you feel if people started blaming people like you for everything wrong in the world? I bet it wouldn't feel great.
AIDS is caused by HIV, which is spread through any method of bodily fluid exchange between two individuals, regardless of activity. It spread from apes to humans after the virus mutated and adapted to our physiology from constant exposure. Much like Avian Flu.
Pedophilia is a weird issue all on its own, but there is no chance of a consensual relationship between an adult and a child. More often than not, it's purely a desire to have sex with minors. I'd rank that up more as a creepy fetish, but like I said, it's a weird thing.
It certainly shouldn't be compared with people who desire loving, consensual relationships with people of the same gender or of differing gender identities. The exact same feelings heterosexuals feel toward people of the other gender, but that some refuse to acknowledge as such.
Higher suicide rates is an unfortunate truth. Only because of the uneducated bigots getting to these people first. LGBTQPIA children who grow up thinking something is wrong with them, who try to change, find that they can't stop having these feelings, and end up killing themselves because of it. Some have been murdered by homophobic individuals. Just look up Matthew Shepherd. Some people will try to tell you he was actually a drug dealer, but that has been debunked numerous times, and the supposed "true" book written about him was proved to be filled with lies and exaggerations.
People like Pat Robertson say "Homosexuals lead miserable, unhappy lives!" and everyone else is like, "and why do you think that is? Could it have ANYTHING to do with the kinds of things you say about them?" (Google Pat Robertson and some of the horrible things he's said. Not just about gays, but about a lot of people.)
Here are my main points on the subject though:
1. If it were a disorder, then it would obviously be genetic. Except we've mapped the human genome more than once, and there's still no definitive answers as to what is the actual cause. It could be a number of things, but it's certainly not something to be treated as a mental illness, especially not when there are so many variations and differentiations in the trends and expressions within the community. Sexuality cannot be influenced, it cannot be taught, it's just something that is felt by some people. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else have the place nor the rights to tell them what they're feeling isn't real. We don't have telepathy, we can't know what other people are feeling, and we need to stop acting like we do.
2. Sexual orientation and Gender Identity obviously are genetic to a certain degree, since they are occurrences within the mind of an individual. However, this does not mean there are gay genes carried down from generation to generation, it means that certain combinations of genes, hormones, and other factors come into play as a person develops. The thing about LGBTQPIA people as a group is that their members are not necessarily born onto them. What I mean by that is this: Black people generally have Black children. Jewish people generally have Jewish children. Anyone of any color, class, creed, religion, or nationality can have gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc. children. Sometimes, even fiercely anti-gay people have kids like that.
3. Homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation are not necessarily the same thing. Feelings toward the same gender are a lot different than sex with the same gender. Anyone can participate in homosexual behavior, but they can't experience homosexual orientation if they themselves do not fall into that category. Some people fail to make this distinction between the two, and therefore, just make assumptions that all gay people just have gay sex. Just gay sex 24/7, no such thing as a gay relationship, just sex all the time. That is stupid. We should never reduce human relationships, in all their complexity, down to a sexual act. Even then, you don't have an argument against homosexuality, but one against that particular act. There is a huge difference.
4. The point you brought up with the rabbit doesn't have anything to do with this, because trying to have sex with dogs and cats is not an example of homosexuality. That is bestiality, a desire to have sex with members different species. That occurs in people as well, but like pedophilia, it's a whole weird thing on its own. Likewise, do not compare a person wanting to have sexual intercourse with an animal to a consensual adult relationship. Actually, thank you for bringing that up, because its made me wonder some things now.
5. Just because something is true of some people within a group does not make it true for all of them. Just because a couple gay people are assholes doesn't mean they all are like that. I know that, just because I've run into a few self-righteous fundamentalist Christians, not all of them are like those fanatics. You watched one video on murderous gay penguins, so don't assume that they're all like that. Like you said, I would suggest more research. Except in terms of actual pair-bonding.
6. Yes, they are a minority. Roughly 3.8% of adults in America identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, a tiny number out of about 360 million people. That number is much smaller in some other countries, sometimes as low as 1%. That adds up to maybe a few tens of millions of people worldwide. Some countries don't even keep tabs on this statistic, because anyone found participating in "non-traditional relations", or whatever they call it, will either face massive fines, charges as sex offenders, jail time, life in prison, or even death. Such is the truth in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan.
7. The "victim card" is played far more by people like conservative Christians and fundamentalists, who see a few gay people bully a Christian kid, then immediately decide that all gay people are evil and should never be allowed their rights. They pull the card to say critics are "infringing on their freedom of religion." That is hypocrisy and generalizing gone horribly wrong. Honestly, by their logic, if bullying is enough to remove a person's rights, we should've banned religion in America a long time ago. I have nothing against religion of any kind, I am all for people believing what they want to believe. I just can't stand people who use it for their own agendas. Like Shirley Phelps.
8. Homosexuality, like I said, occurs in several other species. This is one thing I don't get about homophobes who say its wrong because it's "unnatural." The other thing is this: even if it were unnatural, why would that be a bad thing? The internet is unnatural, clothes are unnatural, buildings are unnatural, cars are unnatural, most food we have is unnatural. Just because it doesn't come from nature doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I think what most people mean is by unnatural is really "unorthodox," "unusual," "strange," or most immature of all, "icky." Just because something grosses you out, which I know it does for some people, does not mean that it's wrong. By that logic, I should believe cleaning the toilet is wrong.
9. Finally, my biggest and most important point is...why do you any of you care? Why are people you so against people getting married when it does not, in any way, affect your lives? Whenever someone calls it unnatural, they really mean its "unorthodox," "unusual," or even "icky." I get that, but just because it grosses you out doesn't make it wrong. 'Oh no, they're gonna let gay people get married! What'll this mean for our world?!' It means gay people will get married. That's it. Straight people will continue to get married as well, they will have children, the species will continue. You don't want to have any part of it, you don't have to. Same way I want no involvement with the government's ever-growing incompetence. But unless you were planning on marrying someone like that yourself, gay marriage doesn't affect you life in anyway, so why are you so against it? In this day and age, I think we need to encourage more love. Not less.
Finally, I want to ask you something. Why not offer some sort of empathy? We as humans are capable of putting yourself in someone's place and imagining what they may be feeling. Imagine how your words may impact someone else. Imagine the kind of damage you could do if you said the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time. Just try and picture from the viewpoint of a group who want to be seen as equals, who are denied acceptance for who they are or who they have feelings for. Who can be killed in some parts of the world for that. Who have been around for a long time, and will be here long after this generation.
There you go. My views on the issue. I am believer in human rights. I am an Egalitarian. I believe in rights and freedom for all, but when you challenge those under the guise of being under that same banner of freedom, you're not doing anything in the name of equal rights. You're undermining them. You're promoting your views and beliefs above everyone else's. You refuse to acknowledge any other view because to you it is foreign, and therefore, incorrect. When really, you barely know anything about anything.
I've seen so many people like that. They're all the same. Same arguments over and over, same black and white views on the world, morality, and everything. Same bigoted jargon and hate speeches disguised as actual human dialogue. Same slurs against simple criticism toward a morally-twisted opinion, which they treat as fact.
Here's the real truth: Hatred and bigotry in the face of anything unorthodox is far, far more disgusting than love between two consenting adults could ever possibly be.
I am through arguing with you. There's no real point anymore when you clearly will not see past your own views on sex and reproduction, when there is much more to relationships than that. Just try to look at the world from outside your own perspective on things, and maybe you'll learn something.
So congratulations, you won a debate with a random guy on the internet who responded to your comments. I hope you feel very, very proud and accomplished with yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The guy you was arguing with puts biology above emotions, hmm...Also, you make some valid points...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ok, that's just ridiculous. you better run, if the best points you can make can only be made by twisting my words into an obscene caricature. it's clear you never intended to take this subject honestly and on it's own merits. moreover, how can i possibly take someone seriously who baits, taunts, condescends, lies, gives incomplete arguments, then turns around and tries to take the high road? you have no respect for truth, and therefore all your points are suspect, even if you do accidentally manage to get one right.
try to get this clear, all right? real simple - i'm not passing judgements - yet. the stages of problem solving, as per Jung, are 1, figure out the subject exists 2, define the substance of the subject 3,determine it's relationships as processes, and 4, determine it;s qualitative value. Value judgement is LAST. i'm not going there till it's confirmed that marriage is defined in terms that make it quite clear that it's essentially a stage in the reproductive proccess. obvious to most, but apparently not all. you're the one who wants to go there. in fact, you HAVE to go there, and gloss over the functional definition of marriage, if you're to have any case at all. that's why you're so desperate to confuse the issue. if you allow a functional definition of marriage, your case becomes a joke. well, it always was, but now everyone sees that the emperor is without clothes, and the asininity of the situation is revealed, in all it's counterintuitive unglory. but, too bad for you, i'm not going there. yet. everything in it's place, in due order. my point was to clarify and define in functional terms, and that remains my point.
have i not made it abundantly clear that appeals to sympathy and appeals to popularity were not going to be accepted as valid? they prove nothing, and only serve to further confuse the issue. which is your point, it's obvious, but since they've been exposed as fraud, why do you persist in using them? i'm going to keep pointing them out as fraud, and refusing to have any discussion on such a basis. ironically, it must have occurred to you that if disorders involving sexual mental maladaptions can be cured, as many mental disorders can, then you, and all who deliberately encourage such maladaptive behavior, are the basest sort of scum, and are de facto accessories to murder. since how many maladaptives would not have comitted suicide if they'd gotten successful treatment? treatment not recognized by the medical community, due to the strong media bias, but treatment that IS available, if one looks hard enough. do you dare research this? of course not.
now, you've told a lot of outright lies here, and i'm not disposed to let them stand. most of them are quite beside the point i was clarifying, but still need to be faced down. for starters, that whole second paragraph was a testament to you conduct, not mine. not one piece of that will i take credit for. and the proof is, you deal in broad strokes, but have no singlr case of such conduct on my part. you thought i;d let you get away with that slander? you were dreaming.
yep. that's what i called any chronic sexually maladaptive behavior - a disorder. any. all. if you CANNOT use that function to produce viable offspring, IT IS A DE FACTO DISORDER, BY DEFINITION. deal with it. form follows function. reproduction is a life function, if it's out of order, for whatever reason, there's a problem with the organism. the object orientation of the organism, which you expanded on in great detail, and without point, is less important that if it's performing it's biological function. i don't care if you want to marry a rabbit, an arm chair or an apple pie. can you produce offspring with it? that's what determines functionality. i don't care if you like it or not. i do care if everyone lies about it. you say it makes no sense? if you define every phenomena as based on feeling and emotions and catharsis, your point of view would make sense, but defining matters by larger issues, makes more sense, especially since feelings and emotions and such exist in relation to these larger issues, not your backwards "feelings are the point" rhetoric. emotions are part of the greater whole, the larger reproductive/survival/will to life schema, and until you grasp that, you will seriously believe that feelings and subjective drives come first, which is an ultimately juvenile worldview. but you can't see that, yet, and you dare not look, lest your self concept be revealed in it;s puny vainglory. that's beside the point, really, and of little interest to me, save perhaps academic curiousity.
"backward logic, stereotyping, and outright lies spread by dumb people". crap. again, if an organism CANNOT perform a life function, for any subjective reason, we have a disorder. mental, behavioral, or physical. your statement has no functional relationship to the obvious facts. "a disorder. That's where i draw the line. these folk have nothing wrong with them". I'm crossing your line, but science did it first. In fact you drew that line across science's feet. debunked? shouted down is more like it, and i have yet to see a viable argument that supplants the classic view of the matter. not one. and you've only made a bunch of dubious logical fallacies to support your case, most of which are baldfaced appeals to sympathy, which just won't wash.
wheather feelings are a choice or not is hardly relevant. is the behavior biologically viable, or is it not? why'd you even write that?
AIDS. who brought that in? that's a risk of any sexually promiscuous lifestyles, but how does it relate to behavioral maladaptions?
"earthquakes" natural disasters, etc. really? first i've heard of it, and i'm not sure i buy it. but so what? in college, the radical feminists blamed me and all my "kind" for all the worlds evils, and some they just made up. if it's true, it's true. if it ain't, it ain't. why should i bother over some pissants with an axe to grind, unless there's actual substance to thier allegations? that statement includes you, btw
"it shouldn't be compared to people who desire loving, consensual relationships with prople of.....". really? unless you've been one, then the other, and have access to both viewpoints, you have no definitive basis for that statement. it is essentially argumentum ad ignoramum anyway. you thought i wouldn't spot that? what a scam.
"higher suicide rates are an unfortunate truth.....". that's ONE explaination, and not the most likely. the LIKELIEST explaination is that they know inside that something's wrong, and the hatred and self loathing caused by such acts, which are a direct infringement on an organism's drive to live/reproduce, drive that organism to suicide, or acts of acting out deep cruelty. like torturing baby chicks. i can'y prove this, of course, definitively, but it is the likeliest of all possible explainations, given ALL the behaviors observed in organisms with such maladaptions. what, you thought i wouldn't do the research? the big picture is pretty nasty, and people like you playing "unrepresentative sample" only make it harder for them to get help. you really ought to be deeply ashamed of yourself. you aren't, but you should be.
1 "if this were a disorder, it would be genetic". this is a baldfaced lie. there's literally no way you're stupid enough to believe this, and i can't believe you thought i'd let it sneak by. there are behavioral disorders that are not genetic, mental disorders that are not organic, developmental disorders that are learned....and a great many sexual maladaptions fall into these categories. you ought to read helene duetsch, if this idea is having a hard time digesting. if i had any doubts about your lack of respect for truth, this statement earases them. "sexuality cannot be influenced, cannot be taught...". oh yes it can, it's a developmental disorder category. early childhood development. you missed that? how convenient. "{can't know what others are feeling". also not true, there are approximations, and points of overlap. why else would people wince when another person cracks thier head? it's not 1 for 1, but it;s not 0 either. quit oversimplifying. not that that statement is even relevant to the discussion anyway. just more cheap attempts to manipulate the conversation. growing tedious at this point.
2. well, glad to know that if i convert to Judaism, i'll get to change my genetics. i wanted a bigger nose anyway. genetics=mind? how did you arrive by that little tidbit? this should be good. i pretty much disagree with this whole statement. i got the booze gene, but i choose to not drink. my genes influence my actions, but do not rule my life. your whole point is not accepted.
3.human relationships are human relationships, an the ones that validate marriage produce offspring. or are you saying that ALL relationships between people should be validated by marriage? of course not. some relationships lead to marriage, others do not. the indicator of appropriate marriage is the intent to produce viable offspring. affection, love, and emotion are not the lead factors in this. biology is. how can anyone not see that?
4.it is an example of maladaptive sexual practices, and proves my point quite adequately. i also used a pie and an arm chair as examples. take it as you like, as your opinion has no weight of strength of character, and is inconsequential until it demonstrates some. i won't hold my breath. you said homosexual, which is one specific disorder, i said sexual maladaptive, which is essentially all biologically ineffective sexual behaviors. for the tenth or so time. i'm having a hard time believing you're this obtuse.
5.and? shouldn't you be turning that argument around on yourself? relevance to topic aside, treating them all like saints (as your side tries to) or like scum (as everyone with a functional will to life tends to) doesn't solve the problem, does it? only proper diagnosis and treatment is going to help. you say they're great parents, i say they're likely to cause more problems than solve them. i don'y know what science says exactly, as all the data on such families that ive seen so far comes from highly suspect sources, like the joyce institute, the tavistock institute, or mother jones. all crap. until i see decent nonpartisan data, i'm not setting my opinion in stone. and your opinion doesnt convince me either. i'll stick with common sense for right now.
6. assuming your figures are correct (i've heard different), what exactly does that prove? alcolholics are a minority too. i fail to see the relevance to topic here.
7. what Christian fundamentalists say when they play the victim is just as irrelevant as what you say here when playing it now. if they use it to dodge an issue i'm dealing with, i'll deal with that then. right now, i'm watching you use it to dodge the issue and shift the blame. AGAIN. the issue right now, for the ad nauseumth time, is weather marriage is more about reproduction, or more about feeling? and on a side note, the more i hear your side trash talk the Christians, the more i consider joining them. i don't claim to be a moralist, but your side has such a phobic attitude towards morality and basic concepts of right and wrong, and you go so far out of your collective way to take uncalled for potshots at them, that they must be doing something right. here's a clue -wanting rights without having a corresponding sense of responsibility is ultimately immoral. think about it. if you can
8. this is you taking the ball and running all over the place with it. i said "maladaptive". you saw fit to say "unnatural". rabbit humping cats. it won't work to get babies. you're just failing about, anticipating attacks that i see no need to use. i have a position, i stated it, you seem to be regurgitating some narrative or other back to me, regardless of my actual points. the behavior either fulfills it's function, or it does not. if they made some mutant catrabbit, my argument would be moot, but they can't.
9.why do you care, for that matter? if it's no big deal, just adopt and form a civil contract. why call it marriage? for the money? the legal rights? calling something a marriage that can't produce offspring is not really appropriate. call it something else, and move along. why is it such a big deal that you HAVE to call it marriage? that's pretty suspicious conduct. calling it something else shouldn't bother any of you at all, right? by your "logic". unless ulterior motives are in play here....and what might they be, one wonders? play acting? trying to force thier presence and unconscious self-hatred on a public they wish to passive aggressively avenge themselves on? nah. that'd be too farfetched. anyway, why do i care? because i like to define everything as properly as possible, that makes my choices as clear as possible. so when people define things poorly, by accident or design, i might step in and clarify the main points. just to be helpful. call a thing what it is. a good habit to cultivate. "encourage more love, not less" lofty sentiments, unless you are wrong and common sense is right. in which case you are encouraging disease, not love, and are a criminal masquerading as a good man. so who is right? you are not sufficiently open minded to analyze all the angles, so you will not know.
"why not empathy?". i am advocating diagnosis and treatment. from my angle, i am doing them a service, and you are doing harm. in fact, i have studied this matter more deeply than you seem to realize, and the more i study it, the more it seems obvious that maladaptive sexual disorders can and should be treated, not encouraged. in fact, if you really cared about them, you would study this idea, and help those who do not want to live like that to free themselves of a burden they do not want. but you don't actually care about them, do you? you're all talk, like the rest. you don't care how they really feel. hypocrite.
"rights and freedom for all. egglatarian". high sounding, but empty words. "they who teach freedom without also teaching responsibility teach, in fact, slavery". "only good men love liberty. all others love not liberty, but license" - thomas jefferson. no, those who do not understand duty do not deserve rights, and couldn't keep them anyway. only a highly sheltered worldview would think otherwise. take a look at the big world sometime, then come preach at me. you are not honest at present, and therefore not convincing. that can change, but i've found such changes usually are delivered by a hefty boot to the rear. and i don't care enough about you to deliver said boot. "promoting your views and beliefs above everyone elses". i hope you aren't shallow enough to actually buy into that. the value of any view and belief is predicated upon it's approximation to de facto reality, not who or how many believe it. i can't quite make up my mind weather you were being foolish or disingenuous by saying that. well, whichever, calling bs on it. "barely know anything about anything" - translation, 'you don;t agree with me, so you're wrong'. that's almost cute
"ive seen many people like that....which they treat as fact". drivel from stem to stern, no points of relevance, acting high and mighty, symbolizing nothing. you've seen very little indeed, judging by your worldview, and learned little enough from that. can you not see that playing these rhetorical games proves you have no case? if you had anything of substance, you'd use it. "morally twisted opinion". one day you'll realize that absolute moral relativity isn't morality at all, but it's antithesis. one day...
"hatred and bigotry in the face...," 'diagnose and treat' equals hatred and bigotry on your planet, eh? an overgeneralization, oversimplification, ad hominem attack, and outright bs, all in one sentence! bravo!
"i am through arguing with you...." translation "crap! the usual rhetorical tactics aren't working! retreat and regroup! we'll deal with this meddling fool, and that dratted dog, later! how dare he form opinions outside the sociopolitical narrative! come, mr. bigglesworth! to the escape pod!". you are utterly guilty of everything you are accusing me of, and it won't actually stick unless you can bait me into getting angry and losing my cool. you really do have no shame. if it was just me, it'd be whatever, but there are people suffering, and even dying, because people like you are actively influencing the media and interfering with proper diagnosis and treatment of a collection of behavioral disorders. not only do you not care about them, but you have the nerve to use them and thier suffering in a jackbooted social/political game. such toweringly hypocritical conduct is nauseating. i have no words for it. i have no idea why you and yours are doing this to people, but perhaps i can get clues from george orwell...
"so congradulations...." pfff. you define it as having lost an argument, but you turned it into one. i was just clarifying a definitional point. people who argue this issue confuse the issue, and clarity is needed to actually resolve it. arguing only serves those who have an interest in obscuring the issue. i hope at some point in your existence you learn to feel shame, as well as gain a working knowledge of right and wrong.
and that's 4.60
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm... I do admit that the whole "couple thing" is mostly about offspring and that love is just a tie to make the offspring, but you can't really change the fact that hormones make people do anything.
That includes loving other people that are the same gender.
Question: Is it a disorder to love someone the same gender that you are? Or is it just a weird thing weird people do?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"love" defined as friendship, or positive emotional attachment to someone of the same gender is hardly inappropriate, but to take the jump from there to wanting to practice reproductive activities, involves some form of self identity problem. There are a number of theories floating around as to why this takes place, but since the hormones in question are regulated by the thyroid, it has been theorized that foods or circumstances (like damage to), the thyroid, can cause maladjustment of the gender hormones, causiing this sort of maladaption. There are other theories too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hm, okay! Thanks for telling me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you so much for making this stamp. Although I'm not straight or gay (I'm pansexual), we all need support from allies, queer people, trans* people, and all those who identify within the spectrum. And remember us multisexuals; we're here and queer, too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've always wondered if the Homophobes even know that "phobia" is defined as a maladaptive disorder.
...
How do you make stamps?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They are not afraid of homosexuals. They are merely simple-minded and ignorant people who seem to want to just spew their hateful venom.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>