Staredit Network

To luisv: Please don't call other people "stupid" and "newb" if you're in SD. Thank you.


I totally agree. Gay is a stereotype.


Let me tell you about myself...

Some people "genetically" gain muscle mass very quick, and loose it very slow when not doing sports. I, on the other hand, "genetically" gain muscle mass slow, and loose it fast when not doing sports. So genetically, I should be weak. But guess what, when I went to the gym, and ran in the morning 3 times a week I was in shape. So, I was supposed to be weak, and was not because I worked out.


I think you're wrong. Why don't we call all who are straight "straights" ? Aren't they straight ? Yes, they are, so we should call them like that, but we don't, because they're individuals. I suppose you're friends call you by your name, but not "human", or "living being".

Well, in that case, I'm not a murderer. I just enjoy a good killing every now and then.

No, gay means to be a homosexual. if you "associate" it with some odd social twists that's your fault not mine.



This is not the best example, but this does not have to do with what I am trying to say. Being a homo is not genetic. The very existence of ex-gays proves this. If it's not inherent then it's a measurable social phenomena.



... If the duck had a name we wouldn't call it "duck", we'd call it by its name. We don't call straights "straight" because they obviously have a name.

Omm i just dont like gay people.

The more manking goes againts the laws of nature the faster the doom of mankind will become a relality. This also goes on keeping alive "freaks" who can't help the community in any way.

Gays can't help the community now? Are you retarded? Gays can do just as much as anyone else... Are you stupid?

Ah. I never ascribe gays as against the laws of nature, because we must be honest here, we know animals do have intercourse with sometimes almost anything. But animals also kill, sometimes for no apperant reason. We are not "animals"; we are human beings with thought and reason. We are beyond simple animals and we have morality. We know good and evil. So it is not a question of if it is "natural" but a question of if it is moral. Mankind is imperfect, and it is these imperfection that will lead to its undoing.

Tell me how it's moral to tell someone who's never done anything to hurt you, that he or she is going to hell, is evil/bad, and is the scum of society. To make someone feel ashamed of who they are, and to hate him or herself. I guess it must be moral, because some book of teachings, for which you've never met the author, said so.

IMO it's not. We're not starving for a larger population right now. It's not a person's duty to have many children, if any. The homosexual population is so small, it's not going to significantly affect our population's growth. A homosexual person, cannot possibly hurt you in any meaningful way by being homosexual. Your teachings are out of date. Blind conservatism is what will be mankinds "undoing".

Well what if you were raped by a homosexual? What then. Then can you call them out?

Sry. I never said homosexuals were the SCUM of society, please stop spreading hearsay. Like I said, homosexuality is not genetic. So, it's not making them feel "ashamed of who they are". The existance of ex-gays proves this. Can people become "ex-midgets"? That's genetic and notice, they can't will themselves to be a normal size now can they? Stop ignoring the evidence, it only proves you are extremely brainwashed.

How many times must I repeat myself? This argument isn't about the Bible. Yes, the Bible does condemn homosexuality, but I have not mentioned it at all in this topic. All I said was that "I'm a Christian".

I find it offensive that you say a "homosexual cannot hurt me" in any way. Do you know me? Do you know a thing about me? No. You do not. So do not assume that homosexuality cannot affect me. Some people can be gravely affected by things that do not affect others, I am not saying this is the case for me, I'm just pointing out that you assume one too many things.

I teach nothing. I am pointing out logical arguments that are in no way related to Christianity or the Bible. So please stop the rhetoric and post meaningful counters or do not post anything at all.

Once again, you assume I am a conservative but this is a poor assement based on 1 issue. Perhaps I am a Liberal that simply doesn't agree with homosexuality? It's a shame you think in such small terms. When I referred to our undoing, I was referring to our imperfections (not homosexuality specifically) as a race that will destroy us.

Where are these supposed "ex-gays"? WHERE?! I've never seen an ex-gay in my entire life. That point is VOID until you can ****ing prove it. That's why you've had to repeat yourself so many times. Because no one believes you!



The Newspaper in your example made a concious effort to tell homosexuals they are sinners. Homosexuals do not make a concious effort to hurt you. The same way you can tell people who eat Jello they're evil, but they don't hurt you by eating Jello, at least not on purpose. Or how about a more relevent example. A hacker hacked SEN as a concious effort. SEN unintentially apparently annoyed the hacker. Whose problem is it?


I didn't say you were of the conservative political party, I said you're of a conservative state on this issue. Meaning you're unwilling to adapt your beliefs to new enviroments, despite the old enviroment being completly different from todays.


But homosexuality in part. DUH. And this proves my point about people making life tough on homosexuals. You just said that they're contributing to the failure of the human race. Nice one, prick.

I still believe that homosexuality can be pure nature. And repeating "EX GAYS PROVE THEIR NON-EXISTENCE!" 50 times isn't going to convince me. There's such a thing as a deviant in society. It's a major element in psychology.

Well, this is my first post in like 2 months. I believe gays are discriminated against therefore they do have the reason to complain of their discrimination, don't they? No matter where you go there will always be intoleration of something, its just a fact of life.

Haha. Sorry, but I find this entire arguement trivial.

Let the almighty Tucker Max shatter your perception of gender.

And a quick fact about gays: there are two types. Straights that go gay, and guys that are born gay. There are also hemaphrodites, and they can go either way.

=P Silly humans, believing that you understand reality. Humans in general are hypocrites, no matter how hard they try not to be.

And don't bother replying to this post, I probably won't be back for another six months. Sayoonara!

CheeZe + Mini Moose ftw!

I hate gay people and they shouldnt even deserve to live.
A man and woman come together to reproduce
But when a man and another man comes together, its for no reason and its stupid. Gay people dont even deserve to live in America. They should be sent to Uranus or something.

I don't even know if that was sarcastic or not.

Unfortunantly it was. Echo is a pseudo-religious zealot who never backs up any of his arguments.

There is a reason why a pitcher and a catcher get together. It's called fun. Infact, it's the same reason why a man and a woman get together. I say this because there is a scary number of people I've met who don't fully realise that people do not have sex to have children. Only in rare circumstances, they do.

Now you start talking about killing them? Gay people don't even deserve to live in america? Maybe YOU shouldn't live in america. Having stupid beliefs is one thing, but actually thinking people should die because of your stupid beliefs, is another.

Yes, and while we're killing the gays, let's get rid of the blacks and the jews!

The ex-gay schtick is a bunch of bull. The posterchild for ex gays, a John Paulk, was found in gay bar in 2000 after supposedly "giving it up". Jeremy Marks, director of Courage, United Kingdom, left the group in 2001 after declaring "None of the people we've counseled have converted no matter how much effort and prayer they've put into it. There is much more benefit to the more honest view."

Not only that, the majority psychiatrist view is that not only do these groups not work, they are actually damaging to the patients involved. So not only is it not verified by fact, it is also viewed as being an ineffective and harmful process by the majority of the medical institution.

Now, the "religious" argument: In the ancient Near East, homosexual rape of a masn was the ultimate public humiliation, having little meaning besides utterly demeaning them. The men in Sodom and Gomorrah are sadists, taking pleasure from humiliating and inflicting suffering.

Leviticus either specifically prohibits the action of penetrating a man, or is referencing a Egyptian/pagan cult practice where a priest would dress as a woman and have orgiastic sex with adherents ("lie with a man as with a woman"). If the former is true, then not only does it make no reference to the desire, it also doesn't particularly apply to modern culture.

Remember that the ancient Hebrews lived in the desert, where starvation or disease could've hit at any moment and potentially kill many of them. The "seed" was thusly valued highly, as they needed to have many children to ensure the survival of their line (remember also the high infant mortality rates). Taken into context, it's a prohibition of wasting something that was the essential to their continuing existence. We live in a society of comfort, and the chances of dieing before reaching reproductive age are relatively slim. So, our population is very large, and we don't need to use every single drop of semen for procreation.

The Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and the laws must be viewed in context.

Sigh. Is it so hard to understand the points I've made? Please, this topic is not about Christianity or the Bible, so STOP dragging it in only because I said I was Christian, k?



I never said gay is "unnatural". In fact, I said this is a bad argument.
I never said someone just "wakes up and says, I'm gay!"
Why bother worrying about anything then? What a dumb point to bring up.



Ok, I'm not going to address the Christianity aspect of the argument because I've made it clear at least twice that this topic is not about this.

So, if a "prominent" homosexual actually molested a boy, would this mean all homosexuals are pedophiles?! No, it's important not to allow "prominant" members of a group define the group.

What "group"? There are many ex-gay groups. It's not just some club or something. I can't comment on this Marks fellow because I've never heard of him and I don't like speaking of things/people I don't know.

Actually, it seems most psychologists have concluded that homosexuality is not inherent. Odd, eh?

Statistics show that homosexual relations do not last nearly as long as heterosexual ones. Also, there is much more violence in homosexual relations than non-homosexuals ones. Hum, can it be then concluded that being a homosexual is potentially more dangerous than being a heterosexual? Let's be clear here, if homosexuality is truly a measurable social phenemona, then of course turning away from it will be difficult.



Blacks and Jews are a race you idiot. Homosexuals are not. This is almost as dumb as when I used to call people on the phone and asked their race and they'd say: "I'm American!" (no offence to Americans, but I encountered this more times than I am willing to remember)



Extreme.



Google it.




And the Toronto Star said, "Christians, you are wrong. Change now and accept our doctrine". They made a conscious effort to hurt Christians by questioning their beliefs? Yet, questioning Christianity is ok? One cannot question homosexuality? Question homosexuality is NOT ok? Let's stop the double standards and take a sharp look in the mirrora.




I wasn't talking about politics either. But it seems you yourself are unwilling to adapt your beliefs at all. Old/new environment is a bad argument because history shows that there were many eras where homosexuality was completely ACCEPTABLE. Look at Rome. In fact, they practiced many things we consider barbaric and illegal. Let's look at history in a broad view please before we slap my view as "old/conservative".



I never said homosexuality in part. I just stated a random statement that was completely off-topic pertaining the imperfections of the human race.

Repeating "ex-gays" should be convincing enough. You cannot change what is genetic. If so, then people who are born blind should be able to change to become "ex-blind", but obviously they cannot. Thus, since ex-gays exist this PROVES that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Yet, you still blindly stick to your ideology? Why do you bother posting if you are not open-minded. If someone provided unequivical proof that homosexuality was by nature, that without a doubt they were born that way, I would change my point of view. Of course, it would be difficult, but I would change my point of view because I'd reather admit to an error than blindly sticking to a flawed ideology to "save face" or because I'm to prideful. Open-mindness =

I'm not arguing the genetics of homosexuality, but ex-gay programs DO NOT WORK. There are no "ex-gays", simply people making public the repression of their true feelings. Repressing your feelings and making yourself feel bad about your inherent desires is unhealthy and damaging, as much of the history of the Western world has shown.

If you cannot directly provide evidence, then it seems you come into this argument rather emptyhanded.


Would you mind providing these statistics? From what I heard, but this is nothing to form an argument on, homosexual relationships actually generally last longer than heterosexual marriages (50% of US marriages end in divorce). As for the violence aspect, it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass.



The term natural does not specifically equal genetics. Natural refers to that which happens in "nature", IE, what normally happens (and in this context, without human intervention). So, let us not forget that over 450 documented animal species have exhibited continous homosexual/bisexual behavior in the wild, information that has been documented for years but only recently proved too be too conclusive for scientists to deny any longer.

The argument of "naturality" is no longer scientifically valid. Not only that, but it's use is mainly restricted to those with a poor conception of what the term "natural" refers to.

You have to remember Wilhelm, there are about 1.7 million species on Earth. What applies to them doesn't necessarily apply to humans. If those 450 species where completely primates, then yes, it's very applicable to humans. Just showing the minor problem in that.

"Blacks and Jews are a race you idiot. Homosexuals are not. This is almost as dumb as when I used to call people on the phone and asked their race and they'd say: "I'm American!" (no offence to Americans, but I encountered this more times than I am willing to remember)"

Jews are not a race, they are part of a religon. Stop pulling things out of your ass.

And anyway, its all the same, killing large groups of people because they are DIFFERENT. Its prejudice and its discrimination.