Rico said the other thread was getting too off topic so I suppose he inexplicitly implied that I need to start a new one.
Anyway, the overwhelming motivation behind the drive to legitimatize homosexuality and lesbianism is the "profit motive" as insituted by pornographers, the motion picture industry, the ACLU, and the self appointed 'spokesmen' for the homosexuals through their advocacy in this pervasion.
Additionally, in the early 1970's, social pressures from homosexuals dissuaded the APA from stating that homosexuality is a psychological condition-which they still believe, but, as said, cannot teach.
Worse even, the internet has brought light to even more frightening phenomenon-pornography from those whose only motive was the creating and sharing of obscenity for the sake of its degenerate representations with no financial cost to the consumer.
Even though it is undeniable that the world is getting progressively worse, we can uphold our own standards and choose to resist this mudfall.
OK, how do I put this...
While I share your view that homosexuality is unnatural, I don't want these nice folks here to view me as a paranoid conspiracy theory touting, Christian bible thumping nutjob.
As it stands I have a well deserve reputation for being a plain old rightwing nutjob, just ask Cycle.
However, if you are going to point the finger at the ACLU, Hollywood, etc, YOU NEED TO HAVE A SOURCE THAT BACKS UP YOUR CLAIM. As it stands I see no sources.
Otherwise, you come off as the paranoid conspiracy theory spouting idiot who has lost their aluminum foil deflector beenie (to make another one to replace the AFDB you lost, go here zapatopi.net/afdb/ ) and forced to say idiotic things by government mind control.
Just thought you'd want to know.
Jimro
It's true! I have a "DEVIANT" art site and everything!
Rico's my favorite deviant 
A War We Must Win-John Harmer
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth-Jeffrey B. Satinover
Slouching Towards Gomorrah-Robert H. Bork
Rico, nice way to avoid the topic.
Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural. Because it is natural, it cannot be logically viewed as a perversion. QED.
No. It results from adaptive experiences. Nobody is born with homosexual inclinations. It is not natural, therefore, according to you, can be viewed as a perversion.
Furthermore, what if a monkey is born with a deformed arm? That occurs in nature, is that natural? No, it is not. It is a problem that should be fixed.
Homosexuallity has existed as long as history can told, it's nothing new, everything is a lot more open nowadays and a lot more people are open minded and friendly about the whole thing. If a two guys are attracted to each other, and end up living their lives together happily, do they have a problem? Nope. Anyone with a problem about that should keep it to themselves and just try to live their own lives happily.
No. It results from adaptive experiences. Nobody is born with homosexual inclinations. It is not natural, therefore, according to you, can be viewed as a perversion.
For example, a monkey is born with a deformed arm. That occurs in nature, is that natural? No, it is not. It is a problem that should be fixed.
By that you could call heterosexuality a perversion, since I doubt homosexual men were born with an attraction to women and vicer verser. I mean, when I think back to being a kid, boys tended to hate girls and girls seemed to hate boys....then they grow up and learn from life.
Quote:
No. It results from adaptive experiences. Nobody is born with homosexual inclinations.
Yes. They are.
Quote:
It is not natural, therefore, according to you, can be viewed as a perversion.
I said "If A, then NOT B" You say that "If NOT A, then B" logically follows from it. You are wrong. This is called an invalid syllogism.
Quote:
Furthermore, what if a monkey is born with a deformed arm? That occurs in nature, is that natural? No, it is not. It is a problem that should be fixed.
It depends on the circumstances. If the monkey was born that way because of unnatural factors, like human-made chemical waste, then it would be unnatural. If it was a genetic deformity, then it is still natural. Unfortunate and problematic, but natural.
I am not arguing that homosexuality is morally okey dokey (which, by the way, it is). I am merely saying that it is natural.
The truth is they do not live their lives happily together. There is not a homosexual couple that is truly happier because of their perversion. Yes, it is becoming more 'open' but that is certainly a piece of the perversion. The Mere Exposure Effect clearly states that the more we are exposed to a stimulus, whether it is good or bad, the more we tend to like it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mer...ure_effect
In effect, one can see that the increasing exposure of homosexual stimuli will tend to make them like it.
" Anyone with a problem about that should keep it to themselves and just try to live their own lives happily."
That could easily be said about murder. That is an extremely weak argument. Please try harder.
This is very Marble Gardeny.
There is no evidence that one is born with homosexual traits. If you would like to see the research, download and read this document: s8.yousendit.com/d.aspx?i...1VD2OLTUZX
Quote:
There is no evidence that one is born with homosexual traits. If you would like to see the research, download and read this document: s8.yousendit.com/d.aspx?i...1VD2OLTUZX
No, thank you.
Then everything you have said is negligible, or at the most, opinion.
The truth is they do not live their lives happily together. There is not a homosexual couple that is truly happier because of their perversion.
Ahh, I see, you've met every homosexual individual and couple, asked them about their life and whether they're happy?
Seriously, act like a joke and you'll be treated like one. There are couples that have been together for years and years only now being able to get married in the UK, and are doing it, why in God's name would they do that if they weren't happy?
" Anyone with a problem about that should keep it to themselves and just try to live their own lives happily."
That could easily be said about murder. That is an extremely weak argument. Please try harder.
A homosexual or heterosexual relationship that invovles no more than two people who are involved willingly is the business of only the people in that relationship. Now if I was to murder someone I'd be forcing someone to die against their will. They are not the same situation in anyway shape or form, thus the situation is very, very different. And for the record, I don't need to try harder, because the point is simple, simplicity is not a weakness, and besides, you've given me no reason to barge in on a homosexual couples home and stop what they're doing, cause that really is not my business.
"Ahh, I see, you've met every homosexual individual and couple, asked them about their life and whether they're happy?"
I encourage you to do so to the best of your ability, you'd be surprised.
"why...would they do that if they weren't happy?"
They don't even know that answer, they only hope to be happy in their perverted decision. Ever heard of a delusion?
"Seriously, act like a joke and you'll be treated like one."
It is unfortunate that something even of this nature has been reduced to a joke by you.
Homosexuality is not your business, they can do what they want in the privacy of their homes blah blah. Another old argument. Would you want psychotically disturbed people doing things privately in their house and then coming out in the open to interact with normal people?
Quote:
Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural. Because it is natural, it cannot be logically viewed as a perversion. QED.
In that case there is NOTHING unnatural because EVERYTHING occurs in nature. Duh.
Come up with a better argument.
Jimro
stupid doublepost
As it stands I have a well deserve reputation for being a plain old rightwing nutjob, just ask Cycle.
What? No, not you.
Cycle, that is a really offensive image.
Cycle, that is a really offensive image.
Coming from a repugnant prick like you, the irony of that statement is nauseating.
That's flaming, Cycle. I didn't do any of that. If I cared, I would report that. But hey, mean people suck, nice people let them, right? You can live and be spiteful at other people, but I'm not going to take that path.
From early on in the topic:
>There is no evidence that one is born with homosexual traits.
However, I cant find it to hand But i HAVE read a document relating homosecual tendancies to rock and roll music... 
... No, true honest, it was someone's PHD Psychology paper.
General warning: behave or don't post. Otherwise, I'll have to start being the evil one--though I play the part very well when necessary.
illuminator,
Just for your information the folks who tread the paths of the Marble Garden will eat you alive simply because they can.
So, you are spouting off the propaganda that you read. Don't do it. Don't spout other peoples opinions as fact.
Notice Rico and Cycle's post counts. They've seen this argument at least three times since I've been here. They have eaten every previous poster like you alive.
We have done the "Gay Gene" argument, we've done the "learned behavior" argument. I'm a biochemist, we've even cited PRIMARY LITERATURE. The people here are not stupid. Liberal, but not unintelligent.
I'm glad that you've read books that say how deviant homosexuality is. However, what you are completely missing is that deviant behavior is always compared against a societal norm. Homosexuality was not deviant to Roman or Japanese culture, it is deviant only to Judeao/Christian culture. Caligula was considered deviant because he only had sex with women.
That being said, we aren't forcing anyone to become Christian, or Jewish and make the adopt our morality standards. Forced conversion is something for Muslims to do, and they don't seem to have a problem with homosexual behavior even tho the Koran has passages against it.
The only morality that you have any control over is your own. There is no way to enforce morality without killing freedom, and I don't want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea. People have a right to be wrong.
Jimro
"you are spouting off the propaganda that you read. Don't do it. Don't spout other peoples opinions as fact. "
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but what I have said is what I believe and know is true.
As you have said about Cycle and Rico, yeah, they do eat every poster alive, but not by intelligence, rather, arrogance. I do not appreciate that.
Cycle can insult anyone he wants on the basis that he is an extreme liberal. Rico is able to make others like him by acting like a jerk and pretending its fun. Both have high postcounts and have been here forever, so there is little that the members can do about it. It sounds like a dictatorship to me.
I am also not comparing it against any norm, I agree, and that really was not an issue until this thread was moved here-which was what I really did not want to happen. Now the whole thread has no meaning or context in anything just because of the low standards already set here.
The main reason I brought up this thread was because of how surprised I was with how salacious this forum has become in general. I see quote of the days like "craig looks up to see the beautiful harley bending towards him, she uttered to him... "lets have sex". craig was shocked, though slightly aroused." in the spam forum, postcounts say "Sex is more
fun alone" threads are easily turned into some gross discussion using words like 'anal' and 'sex' constantly.
I never thought I would see the forum in such a perverted state. When I first came here, it was one of the few that didn't have things like that, but now, it is just like any other forum.
Quote:
Would you want psychotically disturbed people doing things privately in their house and then coming out in the open to interact with normal people?
That's got to be the poorest rebuttal to that argument I've ever seen.
People do weird stuff all the time; you just don't know about it because, as was just said, it's done in the privacy of their own homes. Meaning no one else sees it. No one else experiences it. For all intents and purposes, to others, it doesn't exist. If these people are doing something that brings no harm to others or somehow infringes upon them, who cares? Or would you seriously discriminate against someone and opt to cast them from society because, within the privacy of their home, they are, say, striken by an obsessive compulsion to lick the floors clean, but are otherwise normal in social situations?
Quote:
The main reason I brought up this thread was because of how surprised I was with how salacious this forum has become in general. I see quote of the days like "craig looks up to see the beautiful harley bending towards him, she uttered to him... "lets have sex". craig was shocked, though slightly aroused." in the spam forum, postcounts say "Sex is more
So... you see talk of sex and decide that the best way to address this is to talk of deviance and specifically focus homosexuality?
illum,
You want to keep trying to do things your way, be my guest.
Jimro
Crazy Cham Lea: Yes, homosexuality is a psychological disorder. It was dropped as such due to social pressure in the 70's per the APA.
"
So... you see talk of sex and decide that the best way to address this is to talk of deviance and specifically focus homosexuality?"
Yes, this forum is obviously having the most problems with homosexual inclinations. If you really wanted me to focus on it, I would talk about the selfishness and lust, but I want to keep it concise.
Jimro:
I stick up for what I believe. Weak minds are for weak people.
Quote:
Yes, homosexuality is a psychological disorder. It was dropped as such due to social pressure in the 70's per the APA.
BTW, Crazy's question to you was would you discriminate against people who do something that you consider to be "abnormal" in their own homes though the people act "normal" in societal settings. You didn't answer her question at all.
Quote:
Yes, this forum is obviously having the most problems with homosexual inclinations.
I hope you do realize that you used an example of a girl/boy "sex" comment appearing randomly as an example of homosexual inclinations here when responding to Jimro.
Greetings illuminator. I tend to come down on the opposite of Cycle and Rico on most (if not all) issues. I will say that although I agree homosexuality is ultimately self-destructive behavior, there is the fact that homosexuals are American citizens, and they are entitled to rights given to them by the Constitution (or whatever the system of law is in a particular country). I think homosexuality is unhealthy, but so is smoking.
My standpoint on homosexuality comes from a moral and religious standpoint (which doesn't really count to most people on this forum), but I also look at it from a public health standpoint. Those who practice homosexuality tend to lose anywhere from 10-30 years off their life. Smoking comes up to 10. I see people criticizing smoking as unhealthy (which it is), but voices are strangely silent when it comes to behavior that has the capacity for 3 times that of smoking.
Needless to say, I happen to agree with you on your viewpoint. But it'll pay for you to do your research; a good majority of people on this forum lean to the left on the political spectrum, and it would be wise to do two things.
A) Research. A lot.
B) Grow a very thick skin.
And watch as somebody (either Rico or Cycle) comes to either mock me or try to eviscerate me. That, or they'll just call me a homophobe. 😛
I wouldn't discriminate against them, it's the behaivor that's horrible, right?
"I hope you do realized that you used an example of a girl/boy sex comment appearing randomly as an example of homosexual inclinations here when responding to Jimro."
The topic is starting to turn to lascivious behaivor in general. That was the real intent of my post.
EDIT: Didn't see Ultra's post...and yeah
"My standpoint on homosexuality comes from a moral and religious standpoint (which doesn't really count to most people on this forum)"
Which is pretty much the same for me, and really sad that nobody respects that.
I would think that the difference would be obvious, Ultra. If someone chooses not to smoke, but someone else around that person is smoking then the non-smoker can be harmed as much as the smoker despite not making the choice & possibly not wanting to deal with the smoke at all. The potential to bother/harm people who don't want to deal with the harmful effects of the choices of others is one of the main factors in determining what is focused on and what isn't.
People do harmful things to themselves all the time by choice. It's only when that choice can harm others (i.e. driving while drunk) that people get up in arms over it.
Quote:
Which is pretty much the same for me, and really sad that nobody respects that.
It depends on how you define "respect." The countries most people that post here live in are not guided by religion in terms of what is/isn't "right" so using religion won't cut it for many people. Of course, it is also arrogant to imply (or believe) that only those who follow a religion have morals.
"People do harmful things to themselves all the time by choice. It's only when that choice can harm others (i.e. driving while drunk) that people get up in arms over it."
Which homosexual behavior tends to do, especially to their families (parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents). Not physically per se, but mentally.
Quote:
As you have said about Cycle and Rico, yeah, they do eat every poster alive, but not by intelligence, rather, arrogance. I do not appreciate that.
It's against the rules to fire off personal attacks. Warning two. If you get another warning I will request a one week ban from Kat to allow you to cool down.
Cycle don't reply to personal attacks with the same. Let the mods handle lamers.
Quote:
People do harmful things to themselves all the time by choice. It's only when that choice can harm others (i.e. driving while drunk) that people get up in arms over it.
STDs are contagious you know.
Quote:
Let the mods handle lamers.
OMG personal attack! (shot)
:3
I dunno about you, but none of my gay friends have tried to screw me lately.
Quote:
Which homosexual behavior tends to do, especially to their families (parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents). Not physically per se, but mentally.
I wonder if it bothers these families "mentally" the same way it bothered many Black families "mentally" when it was considered normal to proclaim that those with dark skin were inherently inferior to those with lighter skin.
Quote:
STDs are contagious you know.
Right and most STDs are transferred by heterosexual sex and the only time it's actually a big deal is if 1) a partner is lying about being a carrier (otherwise it's a known risk) or 2) it's due to a rape.
Quote:
I wonder if it bothers these families "mentally" the same way it bothered many Black families "mentally" when it was considered normal to proclaim that those with dark skin were inherently inferior to those with lighter skin.
Is there a health problem with being black like there is with homosexual behavior, however? That's the difference.
Rico: "It's against the rules to fire off personal attacks."
Then why didn't anything come from this? Cycle: "Coming from a repugnant prick like you, the irony of that statement is nauseating."
I guess the phrase 'repugnant prick' isn't flaming, but saying someone is arrogant is?
Quote:
Is there a health problem with being black like there is with homosexual behavior, however?
Actually, there are health problems with being all ethnicities and gender as each ethnicity/gender has genetic reasons for being prone to certain health problems over others.
However, you're confusing illuminator's point that is being discussed, Ultra. illuminator mentioned that homosexuality causes "mental" not "physical" problems for family members, which means it harms others who have no say in the matter. THAT is what we're discussing. Don't confuse issues. Health problems that you cause yourself due to your own actions is your own business--not mine or anyone elses.
Cycle answered an attack with an attack. I don't consider that as severe as an unprovoked attack like you've done twice to myself and once to cycle. I noted his as well but its not an offical warning. Yours is as you do not seem to be here for any other reason than to cause trouble.
Rico: All I said was "Cycle, that is a really offensive image." the picture took the Lord's name in vain and had sh*tty in it! How you could have considered that an attack at all is completely beyond anything I could imagine. Prick happens to be the equivalent to motherf*cker if you weren't aware Rico.
Well if we're sticking to mental issues...homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the APA. Does that count?
After Cycle has fired off the same number of personal attacks as you I will issue him a warning as well.
But if we're certain they're destroying themselves in the first place, wouldn't that be the priority, and not necessarily what happens to those in their family?
EDIT: "After Cycle has fired off the same number of personal attacks as you I will issue him a warning as well."
How many personal attacks have I made?
Furthermore, that's eye for an eye...that's been proven to be ineffective. If I killed three people and Cycle only killed two, I get punishment and Cycle walks away clean?
Quote:
Well if we're sticking to mental issues...homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the APA. Does that count?
As long as someone can use all the research that proved Blacks were inferior to Whites in a debate, sure it can. 😉
Quote:
But if we're certain they're destroying themselves in the first place, wouldn't that be the priority, and not necessarily what happens to those in their family?
Besides the fact that not everyone agrees that they are destroying themselves... but even if everyone agreed that was the case, I wouldn't be for it. Why? I don't want someone telling people what they can/can't do in their own homes unless the people are actually harming someone else.
Mental anguish to me isn't a big deal--not because it isn't painful, but what is mentally a problem for one person isn't going to be for another. However, physical abuses are pretty much uniform.
He doesn't, but he hasn't been mucking around all over the board either. You don't get to decide who gets warnings, I do. If you want to file a complaint feel free.
Cycle, tone down the name slinging.
I just dumped a kettle of fish out the window. Everyone carry on with the actual topic.
Quote:
As long as someone can use all the research that proved Blacks were inferior to Whites in a debate, sure it can. 😉
It kind of helps that these days we can see a cell and DNA; genetically blacks and whites are utterly identical (save for a difference in the levels of pigment in the skin). Back then, people didn't have that knowledge.
Whereas attempts to find a 'gay' gene have yet to survive official scientific review.
Quote:
I just dumped a kettle of fish out the window.
WHY?! You could've made a good sandwich out of that. :O
