EDIT: LMAO. Sorry XD
AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
EDIT: LMAO. Sorry XD
Last edited by Exquiro; 10-12-2007 at 10:51 AM.
"Done because we are too meny."
I was talking about men loving men, woman loving woman. It does not deserve a flag. If that's the case why not give Sadists and Masochits flags? It's homosexuality. So yeah it is a sexuality.
Last edited by Overlord Darth Fluffles; 10-12-2007 at 10:30 AM.
Homosexuality and Sadomasochism are two completely different things. Homosexuality is your sexual preference, while Sadomasochism is a fetish. A fetish is something in particular you enjoy doing, while your sexual preference is a biological response to a particular sex.
You might as well consider heterosexuality akin to Sadomasochism, but I'm sure that if someone made that connection straight people would get up in arms about it.
As for myself, I believe pro-gay organizations has every right to have a flag representing their organization and their cause, which as I recall was how the rainbow flag came about. It represents gay pride in the same way a school flag does school pride. Even if you don't go to that school but support their team, you wear the colors. If anyone blew it up into some universal homosexual cry for uniqueness it was conservatives that, fearing some sort of gay uprising, started to interpret it that way.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
...dear God.
I honestly have seen seven-year-olds have more mature conversations. I figured I'd probably better add my own flame into this, but for the love of random deities, this is ridiculous.
On the subject of the gay pride flag: Homosexuals fly the gay pride flag to piss off the "Bible-thumpers" who are trying to convince them that "it's a choice, not a gene!" In places like San Francisco, I get the distinct feeling that they fly the flag in stores to alert other homosexuals to their presence, but I could be mistaken on that.
On bisexuality: Bisexuality is defined by the Kinsey Institute for Sexual Studies as a legitimate sexual orientation. (By the way, for those who might not have heard of the Kinsey Institute, they were the ones that invented the Kinsey Scale).
On homosexual scholarships: The only legitimate scholarship for homosexuals I've ever heard of was only about $400 Canadian. For those of you who don't have to worry about college costs, that might pay for a semester's worth of textbooks, if you buy them used. Plus, unless said college student has an excellent relationship with his/her parents, I doubt that scholarship would be awarded, because in order to get it, there must be an affidavit signed by the student and both parents that legally attests to the student's homosexuality.
As far as the flag goes, who honestly gives a crap? It's like hippies flying the peace sign flag, or stoners flying the pot flag, or veterans flying their army/navy/air force flags. Saying the gay pride flag is stupid is like saying having any individuality at all is stupid.
Last edited by Momokachan; 10-13-2007 at 07:52 PM.
~Synesthete Extraordinaire~
PSA: If you're going to bad-rep me, do these three things.
1. Learn which one is bad-rep. Green=good.
2. Grow a pair and tell me to my face. Average amount that I check reputation: About once every three weeks or so.
3. Sign the bad rep. At least have the guts to announce that it was you.
First of all, the "I've heard 7 year olds blah blah blah" was cliche.
Secondly, the who, what, where, when, and why of sex are all choices unless the said sex was rape.
So whether or not you liked green eggs and ham, it was your choice to do it with a fox, in a box, or to someone of the same gender.
Yes, but the concept of a gay person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the opposite sex is about as ridiculous as a straight person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the same sex. It would take a lot of repression and probably intoxication to make themselves do it.
The "bible-thumpers" Momokachan are referring to are insistent on the fact that homosexuality is a choice and not something you're born into. This is a bit of a slippery slope here, because there are some people simply born gay, some are gay due to some trauma in their life "turning" them that way, and some people are hedonists, seeking their pleasure wherever they can find it. It's a matter of recognizing that all three are very real, and neither side is willing to do so because they fear leaving an opening in their argument.
Also Momokachan, the point is that having a scholarship exclusively for one particular demographic is indeed biased. The only exception I see is the family's income level, since that would affect how much each family can contribute to the cost of college themselves and so affect how much money the scholarship would grant them. Also, by flying the flag of a particular group you are allowing yourself to be assimilated into that group to some extent, so if anything flying a flag takes away more individuality than not.
I say let whoever wants to wave a flag around do it, so long as it isn't over the windshield of a moving car or some other potentially dangerous situation.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
That is an opinion. Some people (I included) believe that having sex with anything other than pne of the same species and opposite gender is ridiculous, that sexual preference is irrelevant. Some people prefer to have sex with animals. Although it might be socially exceptable in '08, most people find it ridiculous now.
I think all three of those choose to do what they do regardless. They could resist any temptation if they had the self-esteem or will power.
By that logic, being straight is a choice, so I ask you in the spirit of proving your point to go have sex someone of your same gender.
Well see the operative word is "think." You're assuming it's simply about sex. There's much more to a relationship than sex. It's a matter of being capable of feeling romantic love for someone, for instance.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
I'm lesbian, I now and then frequent rallies and marches and such.
I'm not all "pro gay" though, it's not a massive pride thing for me. I'm proud of who I am, it's not what I am but who I am. As for my opinion on the flag, no big deal to me. I have two shirts that I bought on "Coming Out Day", I wear them on occasion but mostly because its a shirt lol. I wear them to events sometimes, but over all the flag doesn't mean much to me because I'm pretty neutral about it all. I'm more concerned with living my life and being happy, rather than be "all about" gay pride.
(An American Original. Made In Norway.)
"Big shots are only little shots who keep shooting."
"Courage is being afraid but going on anyhow."
"Decide carefully, exactly what you want in life, then work like mad to make sure you get it!"
"Defeat never comes to anyone until they admit it."
"Failure is the path of least persistence."
I'm not going to prove a point by doing something I think is immoral. You are right to say being straight is a choice in that it is your choice whether you have sex with people of the opposite sex or not.
There are people who have claimed to be gay but turned themself straight. There are polititions who have lived straight lives untill the power got to their head and they decided to have sex with someone of the same gender. These are examples of people who chose to live the life they lived.
You can have an (intimate) relationship with just about anyone that is compatable, regardless of gender. But this is neither here nor there. HomoSEXUALITY is about sex, just as HeteroSEXUALITY is. While it is human to have a relationship with someone you're having sex with, it doesn't always happen.
The problem with your logic is as follows:
1) The majority of people who "turned straight" tend to go through some sort of mental conditioning to "fix" themselves; those that don't will usually admit to still feeling attracted to members of the same sex but refuse to act on it. THAT is the choice, the fact that you have those urges is not.
2) There is no way to back up the claim that they suddenly became gay because they had power. The only reason you know about it is because they're a public figure, but clearly the people they've done it with have been doing so without having some sort of power given to them. If anything evidence suggests that there's a larger "secretly" gay community out there than was once thought.
Intimate, yes. Romantic, no. There is indeed a difference. Relatives will often have an intimate relationship, and most of the time no romance is involved.
Sexuality is in fact referring to the sex your body is biologically attracted to. Hetero is Greek for different, homo is derived from homos, the Greek word for same. The key word in all of that is "biologically." It isn't something you turn on and off like a switch, you are attracted to whomever you are attracted to. ACTING on those attractions is indeed a choice, however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion less natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you.
This part I will understand if you interpret as an attempt to insult you, but I assure you that's not my intent. Something has been bugging me though; You claim that homosexuality is a choice that you wouldn't act upon due to your morals. Does that mean that you find yourself attracted to members of the same sex, but refuse to act on those urges? Or do you not feel the slightest bit of physical attraction at all? I'm only asking because the way you've been wording things is suggesting the former rather than the latter, and I'm curious.
Last edited by Sanosuke23; 10-15-2007 at 02:53 AM.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
I'm going to have to neglect to address other parts of your post because they are too irrelevant to my original post which started out discussion. If I exclude anything that you really wanted answered than you can PM it to me and I'll be happy to respond.
The bold is more or less what I meant with my original comment, so there is no disagreement here.
It start with the following:
Something doesn't need to directly hurt a person for a person to be unsupportive of it. Things like homosexuality and promiscuity conflict with my values pertaining to family. While I won't drop dead if Bob and Fred play around in bed, I'll still think it is a ridiculous thing to do.
As for the last part, I understand. The rest of it pertained to the topic at hand pretty closely. It may not directly answer the question of whether or not gay people should have a flag, but the topic has expanded since its original focus.
Yes, but I do so love how you disregard the part about how it's biologically unnatural to choose not to act on what you're attracted to, yet you focus on a minor concession I gave to your argument solely to set up the point that it's unnatural to choose against it.
While homosexuality may conflict with your values pertaining to family, I would have to point out that there are plenty of homosexuals that are more than capable of not only supporting a child or children, but that there are a large number of heterosexual couples with children that are in no way decent parents. While I can't call your personal values wrong, as they are opinion and also mostly unknown to me, I can say that from what I do know they seem fairly narrow-minded.
While you may not support their lifestyles or their flag or whatever, that alone isn't judging harshly. Please don't think I'm trying to label anyone who doesn't 100% omg love luv LOEV gay people as being judgemental, homophobic, or any other label you wish to use. What I don't agree with is the fact that you're claiming they shouldn't have a flag, or on a separate and partially related note I assume you disagree with legalizing gay marriage, because you disagree with their lifestyle. THAT is what I find is judging harshly. If you want no part of it that's one thing, but to form an opinion on what they do and do not deserve seems a little self-important.
I would fix this in the original post, but then your reply would seem off....however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion less natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you.
What it SHOULD say is
"...however following what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion more natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you."
Last edited by Sanosuke23; 10-15-2007 at 04:36 AM.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
Ok, don't mind my being blunt then.
The purpose of those examples was to prove that people can live a heterosexual life though they had gay urges. You didn't disprove that the persons in the examples lacked gay urges, nor did you disprove that they lived heterosexually, so you're either arguing for the sake of arguing or I missed something.The problem with your logic is as follows:
1) The majority of people who "turned straight" tend to go through some sort of mental conditioning to "fix" themselves; those that don't will usually admit to still feeling attracted to members of the same sex but refuse to act on it. THAT is the choice, the fact that you have those urges is not.
2) There is no way to back up the claim that they suddenly became gay because they had power. The only reason you know about it is because they're a public figure, but clearly the people they've done it with have been doing so without having some sort of power given to them. If anything evidence suggests that there's a larger "secretly" gay community out there than was once thought.
Romance isn't significant in every dating/marriage relationship. Some people are naturally not very romantic.Intimate, yes. Romantic, no. There is indeed a difference. Relatives will often have an intimate relationship, and most of the time no romance is involved.
If I haven't said that I don't care about whether something is 'biologically unnatural' or not, then I will say it now: I don't care whether something is biologically unnatural or not.Yes, but I do so love how you disregard the part about how it's biologically unnatural to choose not to act on what you're attracted to, yet you focus on a minor concession I gave to your argument solely to set up the point that it's unnatural to choose against it.
I don't think every parent is a decent parent. I don't suport indecent parents. I know that a homosexual couple is capable of supporting children atleast in a financial sense.While homosexuality may conflict with your values pertaining to family, I would have to point out that there are plenty of homosexuals that are more than capable of not only supporting a child or children, but that there are a large number of heterosexual couples with children that are in no way decent parents. While I can't call your personal values wrong, as they are opinion and also mostly unknown to me, I can say that from what I do know they seem fairly narrow-minded.
If I were to say I don't support marriages that contain more than two people, would I be judging harshly against polygamists?While you may not support their lifestyles or their flag or whatever, that alone isn't judging harshly. Please don't think I'm trying to label anyone who doesn't 100% omg love luv LOEV gay people as being judgemental, homophobic, or any other label you wish to use. What I don't agree with is the fact that you're claiming they shouldn't have a flag, or on a separate and partially related note I assume you disagree with legalizing gay marriage, because you disagree with their lifestyle. THAT is what I find is judging harshly. If you want no part of it that's one thing, but to form an opinion on what they do and do not deserve seems a little self-important.
This doesn't make any more sense than the original (which I still barely comprehend.)I would fix this in the original post, but then your reply would seem off.
What it SHOULD say is
"...however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion more natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you."
Simplifying it....
Denying X is more natural than denying X for Y.
For it to make sense you would need to say is something like:
Denying X for Y1 is more natural than denying X for Y2.
Last edited by Wio; 10-15-2007 at 05:09 AM.
My goal wasn't to disprove they lacked gay urges, not that they lived heterosexually. My goal was to point out that the examples you used were inherently flawed when used to prove your case. The burden of proof falls on you for those two examples. This isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, I am offering a counterpoint in what I took to be a calm debate over a fairly controversial topic. It seems you missed something, doesn't it?
Significant, no. Present, yes. Even people that don't have a taste for roses and candy can tell the difference between holding your mother and holding your lover.Romance isn't significant in every dating/marriage relationship. Some people are naturally not very romantic.
So you don't believe they're capable of offering the same parental support that a heterosexual adoptive couple can?I don't think every parent is a decent parent. I don't suport indecent parents. I know that a homosexual couple is capable of supporting children atleast in a financial sense.
If I were to say I don't support marriages that contain more than two people, would I be judging harshly against polygamists?
No, but you seem to have misread my post. The issue isn't you disagreeing with their lifestyle, it's claiming they shouldn't have something because of it when it isn't hurting anyone. Polygamists shouldn't get married to multiple people because it would be murder on tax laws when filing jointly, and polygamy is exploitative while homosexuality isn't.
I re-edited that, I forgot to fix part of it and apologize for the confusion.This doesn't make any more sense than the original (which I still barely comprehend.)
Simplifying it....
Denying X is more natural than denying X for Y.
For it to make sense you would need to say is something like:
Denying X for Y1 is more natural than denying X for Y2.
Last edited by Sanosuke23; 10-15-2007 at 05:30 AM.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
You took my examples out of context and then proceeded to nitpick at them, then you neglected disputing the point they were created to support... actually you conceeded to the original point in your nitpicking of one of the examples. I'm sorry that I didn't feel it was necessary to address the 'flaws' of my examples...
There is a difference, but that doesn't mean your incapable of holding your mother as a lover.Significant, no. Present, yes. Even people that don't have a taste for roses and candy can tell the difference between holding your mother and holding your lover.
There are things you can only really learn well from a father and things you can only really learn well from a mother. Thus it is optimal to have both. The fact that families are so broken up might be related to certain problems people claim to have today.So you don't believe they're capable of offering the same parental support that a heterosexual adoptive couple can?
That wouldn't be harmfull to anyone. It would just create some complications that would need to be fixed, and I'm sure there would be some if same sex marriage was legalized.No, but you seem to have misread my post. The issue isn't you disagreeing with their lifestyle, it's claiming they shouldn't have something because of it when it isn't hurting anyone. Polygamists shouldn't get married to multiple people because it would be murder on tax laws when filing jointly, and polygamy is exploitative while homosexuality isn't.
Because of the rainbow flag, it scared me to buy rainbow coloured clothing...
Used to be known as cool_tria_anime.「今宵の俺は血に飢えている…ってな」
Illustration credit: banafria @ tumblr
I neglected to dispute the point that being gay is a choice that people shouldn't make? How? I pointed out that in order to "overcome" their urges, most "turned straight" people tend to undergo mental conditioning, often using negative reinforcement to train their mind to be straight. That's pretty extreme and more than a little disturbing to me, and someone with more of a passion for this topic might even call it brainwashing. As for the politician thing, you claimed it was power that made them choose to have sex with men, when in fact that's a claim you're in no position to make. You may not have this problem, but a fair amount of people that choose to ignore their urges and wind up extremely unhappy with life, because all of it is a facade to them. That, in my opinion, is worse than maybe going out on a date with whoever you're attracted to to see if there's something more than a physical attraction.
Yes, but progressing down that line of reasoning, inbreeding increases the chances for complications during pregnancy and birth defects. That would be bringing a child with a severe handicap into this world.
What about a man that was raised by women, and live their life as a woman? The only difference being the lack of a female reproductive system. you mean to tell me that menstruation equals the potential for good parenting?
Wow. You can't see the inherent imbalance in one person having multiple spouses? Seriously? I take it your idea of marriage is the wife needs to walk three paces behind her husband when they're going somewhere.
Visit the Toy Dungeon Studios Store and buy a shirt or zipper pull, damnit!
I already posted here but,
Why is it a big deal?
Its just a colorful piece of cloth.
Sig and Avatarby: GoodyLucky
Warcraft: Hit me up!Server: SkywallMain Toon: PhinvarraAlt Toons: Kazrawr and Nithilus
Closed becsause this is going no where and never has been.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks