Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Amadeo

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Starchild23

 

is it "no one's business", when grown hairy arsed men attend these "pride" marches in leather clad s&M gear?

That is an effing disgrace

The answer's simple -- if you don't like to see that, stop going to Pride marches.

No it bloody isn't, because I don't attend them- but they are in city centres where people wil be about regardless of a bloody "pride" march, those freaks should be locked up parading in S&M gear, and that ain't gay bashing as I know a few gay people who think the same

I was actually just being facetious. I don't care what bears do, that's not my thing but I would like to know why you think they should be locked up if they're not committing a criminal act. There are always plenty of police on hand at these events to deal with any criminal activity and you can't miss a bear in leather gear so what exactly is it they've to be locked up for?

reply to post by Amadeo


I do not think it is appropriate for these men to be parading around city centres in S&M gear, call me such a reactionary so and so, but I think that is BANG out of order for these "bears" or whatever the frig these atttention seeking deviants are called to be doing that.

You know what I love about this thread.

'GOHHHHHHHH gays running around in sexy clothes is disgusting'

Now if they were lesbians....... 90 percent of those complaints would vanish.

Remaining 10 percent = Ned Flanders.

How's that for a fact about homosexuality.

reply to post by blueorder


You can't lock people up just because you don't like something about them. If that were the case, I'd be getting all fascist on the casts of Geordie Sluts, TOWIE et al.

It would be BANG out of order if they were going around raping and murdering whilst dressed in their leather gear but since they're not, you have no leg to stand on. Are you as outraged at young girls going out wearing next to nothing, Playboy playmates and that kind of thing?

reply to post by voidla


Sex is all I wrote about?
Hmmmmm. The subject is homosexuality and for some strange reason I can only see the sexual side of it.
Hmmmmm Must be something wrong with me.
Love between two men is not homosexuality. Men are not gay because they love their fathers, uncles, brothers and even close male friends. They are homosexual because they have sex with them but I guess that's no justification for introducing sex into the subject of homosexuality. DUH
Gay pride parades?
Bestiality involves the rape of the animal?
You behave as though you did not understand the points I was attempting to make but by noticing what parts of my post you do not touch on it seems very obvious that you did but just do not wish to call attention to them.
You talk of gay pride parades. I did not mention them. I asked about people insisting on being allowed to advertise their sexual preferences in the St Patrick's or Columbus Day parade.
I notice you did not deal with that.
I asked if everyone should be allowed to demand their sexual preferences be viewed as normal and that the rest of the world is in fact obligated to provide tax monies for teachers to indoctrinate their children into viewing these sexual preferences as normal.
I did mention bestiality. But I also mentioned people with feces and urine fetishes. Why did you not mention them? Do you have no problem with small children being taught that the consumption of body waste is socially acceptable? And if you do then it seems you also have no problem drawing a line as to what YOU view as sexually acceptable. And if you feel that you can draw that line what is your justification for objecting to others who draw a line as to what they deem acceptable or is it just that their lines usually leave you on the sicko/pervert side?
One should either explain logically WHO gets to draw that line and WHY they, whoever they may be, have that right, or accept that everyone has the right to draw their own line and quit whining when it leaves you personally in the creep/pervert portion or admit that there should be no lines and everything is permissible.
But if you go with everything being permissible then what is your justification for demanding that schools teach about homosexuals but not feces eaters etc.
Do some of these suggestions disgust you? Well I guess you can now relate to how many people view your preferences. They disgust many of us.
I will not break into your home and attempt to see what you are doing in the privacy of your bedroom. That is how hetrosexuals treat each other's private sexual lives. What kind of sex or sexual positions my neighbor and his wife indulge in is none of my business. But then my neighbors do not demand to be allowed to carry a 'doggie style sex fetish' banner in the fourth of July parade.
Nor do they demand that the teachers at school teach their children about doggie style sex or incorporate books about the past great achievements of people who performed sex doggie style into the curriculum.

And if you would like to try real true blue disgust try this.
Once upon a time, back in the mid-70s it was suggested that AIDS carriers be restricted just like Typhoid Mary as a health hazard to the rest of the community.
But because the bulk of those infected were homosexuals they screamed that this was discrimination and that even trying to track them and their sexual partners was a violation of their civil rights.
No one wanted to offend the queers
But the homos spread it to the bi-sexuals who introduced it into the hetrosexual population and now, rather than round up a few hundred homosexuals, how many millions of hetrosexuals have died of AIDS to protect the queers right to spread this disease anonymously? Now your talking disgust and I can not think of anything two men might do to each other in a bedroom that could possibly disgust me as much as that simple fact.

Or NAMBLA? Can you imagine a NAMGLA (men-girl love association)? If an organization existed of grown men who desired sex with little girls how long do you think they would last? But because they want to have sex with little boys that makes it homosexual and the group is tolerated.
I understand that not every homosexual is a member of NAMBLA. I use this to point out though that the fear of offending queers has grown to such a ridiculous point that this type of organization can even exist.

I find people with urine/feces fetishes disgusting. I find adults who wish to have sex with children of either gender disgusting. But I am told that if I include homosexuals on my disgusting list there is something wrong with me because.....because.....Well they are different. They are special because......because.....

Just curious. I still find homosexuals disgusting. Is that still permitted or should I worry the thought police will be coming for me?

Originally posted by spocksleftear
You know what I love about this thread.

'GOHHHHHHHH gays running around in sexy clothes is disgusting'

Now if they were lesbians....... 90 percent of those complaints would vanish.

Remaining 10 percent = Ned Flanders.

How's that for a fact about homosexuality.

don't speak for me, I don't give a flying toss who it is, it is not appropriate attire for a city centre where families, kids etc will be watching

Not much of a "fact" after all

reply to post by Amadeo



yeah, if there was a sexualised parade in a city centre I wouldn't care of who it was, hopefully a new regime will come in, don't think this alleged "tolerance" will last forever.......

reply to post by blueorder


I did make an exception for the 10 percent of people who would still have a problem with it.

Okily dokily?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

yes, so I pointed out the section of the article that proves the author is biased?

Is there a problem with that?

He is full of crap.
I pointed out where the article proves he is full of crap.
What is wrong with that?

Originally posted by spocksleftear
reply to post by blueorder

 

I did make an exception for the 10 percent of people who would still have a problem with it.

Okily dokily?

No, yer facts are not "fact", just your biased and prejudiced imagination

Great last line, top stuff there

reply to post by blueorder


Wait, if the reason the gays cannot dress provocatively is because a city centre is a place where kids and families can see them, what does this mean for the beach. Everyone straight and gay is running around with sexualised clothing there in front of all the impressionable children and families. And that is not even mentioning the many topless beaches and clothing optional beaches across europe.

Also given that generally the kind of spectacles these parades involve only happen at parades then any even vaguely competent parents who had an issue with gay or straight people in sexualised clothing being near their kids would just avoid the parade, just like they would never ever go to a beach because of the incredibly damaging effect it might have on their kids.

I mean it is not like gay people are wandering the streets in banana hammocks on the average day right?

Originally posted by spocksleftear
reply to post by blueorder

 

Wait, if the reason the gays cannot dress provocatively is because a city centre is a place where kids and families can see them, what does this mean for the beach. Everyone straight and gay is running around with sexualised clothing there in front of all the impressionable children and families. And that is not even mentioning the many topless beaches and clothing optional beaches across europe.

Don't be ridiculous, S&M is sexualised clothing, swimsuits are for the purpose of sun bathing and swimming, what idiocy this way lies?

Also given that generally the kind of spectacles these parades involve only happen at parades then any even vaguely competent parents who had an issue with gay or straight people in sexualised clothing being near their kids would just avoid the parade, just like they would never ever go to a beach because of the incredibly damaging effect it might have on their kids.

utterly ridiculous reasoning, big cities have people visiting who would not necessarily have an idea that a gay pride parade was on, perhaps there was a specific need to be in a specific area in a certain time you know- but yeah, let us have fat hairy men parading their ridiculous sexual deviancy of S&M fetish in broad daylight in a city centre, and yeah, let us compare that with swimming and sunbathing, which, strangely for you is some sort of sex activity


Kudos to you, fantastic gibberish

Two pages later and my question still goes un-answered. So, I'll ask again.

I have a serious question that I would like answered by those of you who think being gay is a choice.

Did YOU chose to be straight? When did you wake up and say "You know, I'm going to be attracted to women."?

I tried being homosexual, and it did not work. It went against the way I was born. I didn't wake up one morning and say "I'm attracted to men!" It just happened that way.
Honestly, if it were truly a choice (for most, anyways) I wouldn't be attracted to EITHER men or women, as both are f**ed up in some way.

reply to post by Believer101


People do not choose to be a certain way, they choose to accept the certain way. I do not recall who told that quote, but I agree with them so much.

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Amadeo

 

yeah, if there was a sexualised parade in a city centre I wouldn't care of who it was, hopefully a new regime will come in, don't think this alleged "tolerance" will last forever.......

So you'd rather have a new regime that would pass all sorts of laws against gays rather than actually do something to sort out all the other problems in the country? Don't you think you should have a little sit-down and re-think your priorities? Or are you just so blinded by bigotry that you can't even see straight?

I'll tell you here and now, that sort of situation will never happen in the UK so you might as well get used to the idea. Attitudes like yours are in the minority and are in fact a dying breed. However, while there are still people like you banging on about it, there will be people like me, unintimidated and ready to take any bigot on. You should probably start learning how to live with your anger, fear and hatred because gay people are not going to go away.

reply to post by deepankarm


And yet there comes a point where one can exceed mere observation and enter into fixation. Also, your definition of morality is not necessarily held by others. I've yet to see how, infact, homosexuality is in itself immoral, i want a broke down process well laid out which may offer some enlightenment into this matter. I expect it when such statements are made. Also, if you draw from references, I want you to state them so I can see them for myself aswell. I've hardly seen this, most of what i've seen is cherry picking, whether is be from 'scientific sources' or otherwise.
The arguements that are biblical based fail to a non-biblical person when it comes to 'proof'.
To simply say, 'homosexuality' is immoral without real reasons why is meaningless.
Also, if you perceive homosexuality as immoral for whatever reason, then why fixate on this one particular sin when there are a whole horde of sins, expecially if one holds that 'sin is sin'?

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Xieon
The thread is about the facts of homosexuality in relation to being born homosexual, or not.

Can we leave out the talk about right or wrong, or why your god forbids it, or why someone has a certain username, etc.

Does anyone have any proof that shows someone who is homosexual has any genetic marker that makes them so?

But that's the only reason we question it, is due to morality.

Without morality, it becomes moot.

This doesn't have anything to do with morality though.

I simply want to know if there is any evidence that being gay has a genetic marker.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

SplitInfi, thanks for this confirmation. The people running the war games don't care about these guys. They care about not upsetting the people whose countries we are in. Or some such politically correct cr&%. I was reading about this in Michael Savage's book, "Trickle Up Poverty", and I know a lot of people don't like him, but he is very American, and I was furious when I read about how the current crop of leaders are putting our troops in danger for a political agenda.

You have to understand one thing...one of the biggest problems we have is Politicians like a Congressman or Senate Member...wanting these Big Military jobs in their state so we go on making body armour that is too heavy or other things our guys don't need or policies that Military Leaders should be determining not Politicians.

I am not Military but I work with them and when I go out...and I am relatively old....but in shape...but still...old compared to these young gys with me...I make sure my team gets the good stuff...things that all should be standard issue like my body armour which is unbelievably light yet saved my life when being shot point blank range by an AK-47. It partialy penetrated but that was older high tech stuff years ago...the stuff we have now us unreal! Plus...since I am "CIVILIAN"...I can refuse a job if I think we are being hung out to dry...but they know that I know when a job like this is being presented...not because they approve of it but because someone on the HILL got some bright idea.

My job is to PREVENT INCIDENTS...and if possible...meet with our supposed enemies and make deals based on Honor. There is money involved...yes...and they have a tendency to chance sides like we change hats...but when I make a deal...and one of my team members is GAY so that is why I choose to post here because It doesn't matter to me that he is Gay....it matters that he does his job! And this Gay Man although younger and less experienced than me...is a very promising replacement for me as I cannot do this forever...as I am already way past my prime. But he is good at it and any thought of some HOMOPHOBE out there that they could Kick that little QUEERS ASS....well He would dispatch you in the time it takes you to open a beer...although I think he prefers wine more so to beer! LOL!

If a guy like me has no problem with GAYS....why would any other person or especially a GUY who is thinking...let's go kick the little fags ass! Well...He isn't little...and it would be your ass on a sling! LOL!
Split Infinity

reply to post by blueorder


Beach wear is not sexualised??? I think it is you who are being plainly ridiculous. Bikinis and thong bikinis are totally sexualised attire. They have the same form and show even more flesh than nightwear, and are used in innumerable sexualised photoshoots.

As for your personal attacks, I think it shows how weak your argument really is.

I'm going to double down on the weakness of your argument because you keep going back to hairy men in s and m gear, again and again it goes to men, you never say people in s and m gear. Always men, so i think you earlier assertion that it did not matter who was in the s and m gear was a blatant lie, and that your actual posts reveal your prejudices.


As for part 2, you made the assertion that the reason it was bad was because it was an area where children would be exposed to sexualised clothing. Your entire counter argument hangs on your denial of bikinis as sexualised clothing. But if bikinis are not sexualised why have they caused such controversy in sporting events as being inappropriate.

en.wikipedia.org...

A sure way to tell if bikinis are sexualised clothing is the google imagesearch test. On doing a google imagesearch for 'bikini' what do we get? Is it a bunch of people engaged in regular swimming and sunbathing activities? nope, its a bunch of ladies making sexy poses. Lads mags are filled with women in bikinis. Your saying bikinis are not sexualised is as ridiculous as me saying s and m gear is not sexualised. So I guess the evidence crushes your rejection of bikinis as sexualised clothing.

But why stop there , what happens when i google for bikinis banned.... 13,800,000 results.

Why would people ban totally non sexualised inoffensive swim wear.. huh.
Bikinis are banned in Barcelona, you can be fined a few hundred euros for wearing one in the city.
The muslim brotherhood wants to ban bikinis. Bikinis were banned from a public pool in utah. Bikinis banned from miss england because it gives a 'cattle market image, to the event. And i mean we have not even mentioned the thong. Thongs are considered swim wear. Are you going to try and tell me those are not sexualised?


So i guess your whole argument is crushed, though it would be hard to call it an argument given it relies on saying 'ridiculous!!!' as being the entire counterpoint to an argument.

Good job btw, really 'high quality' replies on your part. Lots of evidence.....

Originally posted by Amadeo
So you'd rather have a new regime that would pass all sorts of laws against gays rather than actually do something to sort out all the other problems in the country?

sorry what?

Are your pants on fire?

My comments have been directed at those wear sexualised S&M clothing in city centres during the day, regardless of sexual orientation, yet you extrapolate this as passing "all sorts of laws against gays". Why lie, you must either be unsure of your position or think every gay person parades in S&M clothing (which is odd, because my gay pals don't)

Don't you think you should have a little sit-down and re-think your priorities? Or are you just so blinded by bigotry that you can't even see straight?

I am bigoted against people who parade around city centres in S&M gear, I'm pretty sure my priorities and attitude are appropriate.

I'll tell you here and now, that sort of situation will never happen in the UK so you might as well get used to the idea.

These sorts of comments are just silly, how can someone possibly know what laws will be in place in 20 years time, you believe it may not hapen, but you cannot tell me what will happen in the future (outside of us all dying)

Attitudes like yours are in the minority and are in fact a dying breed.
[/qoute]

Really, my attitude of opposing people in sexual fetish S&M wear parading in city centres is a "minority" view, are you positive? Also, "dying breed", really, compared to 10 years ago say? Was the tolerance for S&M displays in city centre much higher then? We have had a lot of immigration since then, from areas of Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa, most of these new arrivals, I would be willing to bet, are not in favour of such attire being paraded around.

However, while there are still people like you banging on about it, there will be people like me, unintimidated and ready to take any bigot on. You should probably start learning how to live with your anger, fear and hatred because gay people are not going to go away.

Whilst there are liars like you, who turn a view on S&M fetish wear into views about gay people as a whole, people like me will be ready to counter your anger, fear and hatred, because I and people like me (including many gays) are not going to go away