Staredit Network

Kellimoose that was totally unnecessary... This is a seriious forum and as stated, lets keep this serious to begin with. and I really dont think you are even mature enough for you. I suggest you to edit your post now.

No, leave your post the way it is. I like looking at the picture.

My point is that just because someone is human doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with them.

If you believe that this is one of your greatest purposes in this life is to reproduce you are a sad, sad human being. I'm sure you will live up to your calling since you set the bar so low.. but given the way you have presented yourself.. we can predict even that might be asking too much.

I actually became an Uncle today. My brother and his wife had a baby girl.. normally I am suppose to be happy and excited for them...

Me and my brother was taught the same stupid bullshiz religion except he is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Therefore he is going to teach that kid the same stupid bullshiz they force fed me and their kids entire goal in life is going to be twisted by their indoctrination. I can only hope that I mgiht be able to influence that child to question things that people try to teach it as absolutely truths.. or else all has failed.

I am not at all happy about the fact these mindless zealot Christians are given the ability to reproduce and teach whatever the hell they want to young impressionable minds. It is ironic that I am gay and I will not have the ability to reproduce to raise up a child of my own and teach reasoning and judgement, through due process (through facts, through experimentation and though observation).. something more valuable than these close-minded fools ever will.

Everyone is different, everyone thinks differently and it is fundimental that we give each individual the right to choose for themselves. It is this skill of intelligent reasoning which should be taught rather than absolutes. Teaching absolutes to such young minds limits their view on life.

This is why I believe many people are homophobic, racist, etc.. the absolutes which trusted parental figures have instilled in their children from such a young age. (Granted homophobia is most predominately developed around teenage years through peers.. who regulary refer gay or queer as a negatives.)




How about you get adopted by neither and have no real person that cares about during your development? Which would you rather have?

That would be funny if some child went parentless all throughout their childhood just because YOU are too scared that the two gay parents couldn't do the job. Would you be able to explain to that kid why it was in his best intrest to be abandoned?

Actually (since you obviously don't seem to know) most kids get their own opinion about everything. I was taught the Christian way as I grew up, but I'm not religious now. By the way, if someone isn't gay that doesn't mean he is stupid.

Ahh I see, Christians shouldn't be able to speak to their children, well I disagree with that. Maybe we should all get together and make a declaration stating that we have freedom of speech, oh wait, looks like someone beat me to it. You seem to think that all Christians are close-minded fools and that non-homosexuals are too. What I think is ironic is that you demand fair treatment, yet at the same time, you don't want others to recieve fair treatment.

So are you saying that if you left a child to grow by himself, he would by default become gay?

Well you don't seem to know how many children are adopted every day. Also, I said that in my opinion I would want to wait for different parents. I never once stated that I would become a shady stranger keeping children away from adoption chances, did I?


By the way, people use gay as an insult because gay is a bad name, the socially acceptable word is homosexual.

Really, I don't care about their orientation. I judge based on personality. I only know one homosexual, and he kind of annoys me, but not because of his way of thinking. He blackmails people.

My sister goes to University of Texas at Austin. It happens to be that that university has ALOT of gay people. My sister is friends with alot of them and she says that they're all very nice people.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion but I agree with synd][cate. My siblings will also eventually grow up and have children and teach them the same stuff they and I were shoved with when we were still young, only hoping their children wouldn't turn out gay. They will make assumptions on their kid's sexual orientation... and will try to make them stay (or even shove them back) in the closet. This I find very depressing. Also, where did he say (or imply) that non-gays are stupid?


Since most of the attacks come from conservative Christians and their interpretation of the bible, it's hard for us not to pinpoint some dislike towards them. However, I believe most Christians aren't like that. I just hate it when they try to attack our sexuality by putting up sites saying that God can heal you. Most likely these gay people will be forever lost trying to find a cure to fix something not fixable instead of accepting who they are and move on with their lives.


Again, I don't see where he said that. He was referring to homophobia which is taught and learnt. As far as I can see he didn't mention homosexuality as being in born. I believe that it's a mixture of prenatal and postnatal influences but it's not something the victim can choose. Of course I could care less why I am gay. I suppose I knew when I was about twelve, but you don't grow up knowing you are or that you will become gay, and it definitely doesn't happen overnight. Everyone one of us is conditioned to grow up thinking that you are straight. I assumed I was straight when I was a kid. What else can you expect from the ever heterosexuality-portraying television (media), music, your parents and even the fairy tales with the prince and princess they read to you? Children don't know about sex, and they don't think about it. From the start what else can you expect every gay child to do except to assume? Even with the same living conditions as my other siblings, who would have known I would end up finding and accepting myself as being a gay adolescent?


If I ever adopted a child, I'd have to make sure they are accepting of having two dads. Not just being tolerant, because being tolerant is just putting up with me and my partner. I want our adopted kid to like and enjoy life with us as a happy family. Actually, by original definition I don't think gay was a bad name, it just emerged into colloquia negative use by some common ignorance of society.



Thanks. Judge a person on what they do right or wrong, not what they prefer. Of course, what is right and wrong is subjective to an individual.


Um, nothing much to say really. But...



Also, other than responding to other people's posts (and completely going off on a tangent), I'd just like to say something about the religious healing and reparative therapy out there. I was just going through certain site's FAQ's and couldn't have been more digusted about what they said. They make very vague assumptions and stereotypes, and answering everything with God (being the fix to everything) while trying to make some form of logical argument that simply couldn't get across to me.

The other thing that really get to me is that they confuse gender identity with sexual orientation (also referring to reparative therapy in this case). They assume that every male gay out there is effiminate, and is not into cars, killing and instead does cooking and likes soft colours. First of all they are not only confusing gender identity with sexual orientation, but also assuming gender roles as gender identity. Wearing a certain type of clothing doesn't strictly define your gender, nor does doing a certain task. It's how the brain innately works. For example, jobs like basket weaving can be limited to men or women in one culture but not the other. "Dresses" are also clothing for male in certain cultures. Define gender as you want to, just don't confuse having a gender identity as practising certain gender roles. Gender roles are just a set of 'code' that is socially constructed, so it can be easily bent between different societies. I have to admit that I enjoy cooking, but that's a life skill I will have to master. This also includes washing and ironing clothes. However in the end I still keep a male identity.

I've known people at a certain site that experience extreme dysphoria about being their current gender, but the gender they want to be eventaully means they have to pursue gay relationships. This suggests that being gay is because of gender confusion can very well be wrong.

In the end, these therapies and healing in my eyes are poorly conducted. Some people may have said they became ex-gays after undergoing their course. However, most of the time I'm guessing it's just them trying to comfort themselves trying to be someone they're not, only suppressing their feelings further more. Many times these therapies have only shown to limit bisexuals to heterosexual relationships and causing gays to not get involved with homosexual relationships. Healthy heterosexual relationships probably won't occur. Many of these therapies and healing don't have any post-course checks to evaluate their patients so how the patients turned out is rather hard to conclude. I don't see why these "cures" have to be out there intimidating those people already so uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. Chances are those people will become even more lost in their sexuality struggle.

What they call success in these therapies and healings may very well just be like being sober or drunk alcoholic. Either way you still can't stop the crave for alcohol. In the end they only simply make you more aware of your same-sex attractions.

Well in that paragraph he made snaps about his brother and I assumed he said his brother was dull because he wasn't gay. I don't know this for sure of course.

I know that the insults against homosexuals come mostly from Christians, but in this case syndicate is just being flat out biased against Christians.
(On a side note, I'm athiest, just so no one gets confused.)


I personally don't care if someone has a different sexual preference, but I'm just happy with my own.

Edit2: I'm sorry that I didn't address most of your arguments but I don't have much time right now.

Ok. Time for diggi to jump in the gay thread. I'm not going to read all 8 pages so if what I say has already been said then just throw minerals at me as my punishment.



People often refer to gays as "fags". And looking the word "fag" up in the dictionary it will tell you that it is a bundle of sticks. Some people laugh at the fact that we are calling them bundle of sticks which appears to make no sense. But in fact, in the old days, they used to burn Jews (possibly witches too) on crosses with... bundles of sticks... , spit on them and call them fags. Thats how the word came around.

"Develops"... Boy, how I love such 'precise definitions'.
How about being dependant on hormones, genes, related etc. and perhaps with a little impact from the child's surronding environment?



In case you didn't know/studied already that in the early begginings there wasn't a thing called sexual genre. All beings were assexuated. Why not regress back to what was passed over eons ago? Meiosis has a far better chance ot survival due to genetic divergency and yet still keeping the species' trade gene pool.

And I'd like for ya to present a proof of that latest statement of yours that AIDS is handed out with greater chances between homossexuals than in the hetero's case.
Currently in my country the largest growing slice of HIV infected fellas are in the heterossexuals group. I'll try to find stats to prove my point, although the burden of prrof for this one should be presented by you (afterall, you've made the claim n' all).



I'd rather be addopted than not to at all. And like if you even had a choice on most cases, but wth... If they're proven to be fit as parents by the State, why not? I see no logic reasoning to prevent this from happening.
I'm not for entering a debate upon futile logic nowadays, so I'll leave it at that.

3. "So?" I was more on the line to learn about'em and not to being solely "strange" in my (previously presented) link but instead, different. To keep an open mind is always, or almost always, a good step to tolerance. I hope that you know that tolerance goes hand in hand with diversity and that diversity is what makes our societies proceed.

And since you haven't replied to my nr. 1 as I did to yours, it's my belief that you:
a) Don't have any real good reasons for it, other than personal bias (resembling a mild homophobia sort).
b) Didn't really know what to say and splatted that thinking that it would slide by.



And that could be said to both homossexuals and hetero's. Perfection isn't a human trade and I'll leave that to a higher entity (if there's one anyway ).



At Synd][cate: Just liked to state that I mostly agree with your text up in there, but not on the point of religion performing a twisted teaching against gays. I'd rather believe that it's mostly due to mischevious interpretations some make out of the Bible (that they follow up). And that also applies to the view that some think that Christian based religions have towards sexual preferences (read, as in hetero' is good and homossexual is 'undoubtedly' bad ).
For a moronic case, look at the missinterpretations that lead into forming the Inquisition over Europe in the Middle Ages. It sure wasn't a pretty sight, now that we look back at it. And when we look at it through the enhancing lens we realize that most of it was spawned due to lack of tolerance, sprinkled with lots of ignorance (within their 'poor' hermeneutics).

Even though, I believe that most religions do present a feasible alternative for teaching good principles to folks in society. And note that I'm not saying that they're religious (good) principles but labelling'em solely as good. But that it isn't the only available option for it out there, than it sure ain't, I might add.



And would you be able to make any judge upon things from an early age without fostering/guidance of some sort dealt onto you by the older (with more experience than you, no doubt)?



There ya go again... bending n' twisting other folks words to your contempt.
Although in this case he was speaking of his Christian upbringing, I do believe that what he was refering to can be applied onto any hardcore strict followers of any other religious faith/preference out there.

As a reference case (to C.Christians getting somewhat more uptight), see what the latest Pope made lately. He made a C.Church decree that no one being homossexual can follow the path into priesthood. Oh wait... there goes the equality preached over and over (by C.Christians at least) out the window.
It's my strong belief that this latest Pope will be an immense 180º degrees turn on what John Paul II did for the Catholic Church 'till his death. Afterall, the now Bento XVI (aka Ratzinger) did came from the Church's institution that arose from the defunct Inquisition and that does indeed say something...



Can't you ever stop twisting somebody else's wordings? Or is it only a comprehension glitch of yours that turns everything into a dichotomic scenario (as in, solely black n' white options)?



No, it isn't. Ppl made it that way, mostly by ignorance and with some biased prejudice intended (and you know it).
Fyi note: In here, we use the term gay as much we use homossexual and no one and I really mean no one feels insulted by it since we strictly use to label someone's preferences upon the sexual field.



I think you're refering to the wrong kind of priescraft and mixing it up with priesthood. The (1st) one is the main motive that itty bitty conservatives (mostly Christian in this case) try to pull upon us, almost on a constant basis. For instance, like that OT passage about Sodom and Gomorra (where they state that gays were condemned, and that's solely due to missinterpretation, since I never saw a glimpse there clearly stating that).
Mixing both into a blurr is that they intend to (read, generalize it that way) and not the usual common fella, either it practicing a religion or being areligious.

The fellas that try that crap are either, homophobic biased, ignorant and not respecting one of all main religions' (Christian, Muslim, Budhist, Taoist) followed principle, including theirs: "Respect and accept others as they are, since you'd like the same done onto you".
Kinda summing it up, tolerance is the key to minimize these kinds of hassles. That aren't worthy bickering about, from the get go, but wth that's just imo.

And most, if not all the rest you speak about when refering to external entities and their stances is the kind of priestcraft that I previously spoke of... alas, I must say.




You definetly must start reading things more carefully (as in, he was refering to the kind of Christianity he n' his brother were taught, I believe). That and not dichotomizing stuff on sight. *Sticks out tongue and winks (at same time)*

Edit add:


And yet, since this is the SD area afterall you sure should've done it. And luckily, so far, we hadn't the "fag" label brought up.

That ("fag") definition of yours seemed to be drawned out from the Dark Ages (aka Middle ones), I'll simply leave it at that since have already spoken my words of thought upon those times and eras above (in which unfortunatly the Inquisition roared, btw).

Many, MANY children get adopted every day, never getting any more chances for adoption is very slim.

That's not a very good point. I'll go kill someone, it's not my fault, I'm not perfect.

He isn't a child anymore.

That's why I said is and not was. (Of course I know it, I have my own opinion but I'm not an idiot.)
Fyi: People say black about as much as they say African-American, no one minds too much but African-American is preferred.

You consider that twisting? It's an argument.

He never told us exactly what he meant. So you don't know for sure what he was refering to.

I simply said I thought it was strange, no argument there.

What was your number one? I must have been busy and I still am.
P.S. What is wrong with homophobia? If you say there is nothing wrong with being homosexual than what is wrong with being the opposite?
P.P.S. I'm not homophobic, just to clear up any confusion.

Oh well, afterall you did pull it back...
That still doesn't (logically) explain of why homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to addopt kids.


Good grief... talk about twisting. Please tell me what that has to do with being human.

I was replying to you on why being human, even with something wrong in'em or not, has nothing to do with being homosexual or heterosexual but wth... you semm to solely be on a simple reply streak, which leads to my point - are you really trying to say something? (Or just posting only for the heck of it?)


Oh my... this only gets better n' better.
Care to explain what does this last sentence of yours has to do with kids having to learn on how to judge depending on the guidance/fostering they have from the elders around'em (parents, family, famliy's friends, etc. etc.)?
Or if you seriously believe that they can judge stuff to make their own opnion from the get go, I seriously would like to see your argumentation for it.


For this one, in case 'anyone' around is of short memory, I'll fetch back the original quote and reply afterwards.

What one has to do with the other? And this is a rhetorical question, since in fact it has nothing to (even remotely) match one onto the other.


Fine. And dandy. But since you've missinterpreted a lot of things earlier, who would ya think of us two, is more onto the money? I can even wage a lil' on this matter (even minerals, if you'd like).


*Meh's* Fine (again). But by my book, strange isn't any near different and that is appliable for any day of the week you may choose. Then again, perhaps it's only my dic' that needs a tad updating... (Or plainly not.)


It's even in one of your posts (nr. 142). But since am expecting to see what you're goin' to reply in response, I'll even fetch it back for ya.


And solely to answer "what's wrong with homophobia?", here's my reply to it (below, obviously).

Gee, let me guess... maybe because it's a behaviour with prejudice towards others?
Also I'd like for ya to prove me what does being homosexual has agaisnt the (other) surrounding members of society. Especially, and in particular, that being sexual preferences an inherent trait for anybody (yeah, even for bisexuals).

-------------
Now that I preview all of this post of mine, I can't really leave (read, submit it) without noticing that one of SD area guides upon the rules to use there (quoted below)... I sincerely hope that we can see this eye to eye n' stop in this initial circular logic state before it gets worse.

I never said that, I said that I personally would want to wait for different parents. I feel like a broken record.

Your statement doesn't apply to him because he is a full grown adult and chances are anyone that much older than him is actually deteriorating in wisdom.

It's not twisting at all, you overuse that word. Examples can have nothing to do with what you are talking about. Here is an example of Newton's third law of motion, a car moving, if I said "car", Newton's third law of motion is not what you would think of, but that doesn't make it a bad example.

English please

It's not a rhetorical question, you just don't want me to answer.
He is complaining that people become homophobic mostly when they are teens, and I assumed he thought that children would become gay if they weren't influenced by peer pressure.

Prejudice. People often take advantage of gays and their tendency to be embarassed about their sexual preference, other people kill gays for being gays.

You said "fine", so adding an argument afterwards is redundant.

Syndicate is obviously prejudiced against Christians, I don't see you crying about it.

Thank you for reminding me what I was going to tell you.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry at you in any way.

Oy, sorry to interrupt, but the whole "Gay=AIDS" thing originally came about because homosexual men were the major spreaders of the diseease back in the 1980's. Not because they were homosexual, but because many would visit "bathhouses" which were like basically just a place to hook up. Hundreds of sexual parterns yearly, factor in uprotected sex, and the fact that it was (usually) anal sex (which has the highest chance of spreading an STD) and combine that with ignorance and fear.


BOOM, AIDS is also known as "Gay cancer."


A friend of mine in Pennsylvania was actually told by her health teacher that if a person has sex with a person of the same gender, both will get AIDS, regardless of if either one had it to begin with. Her health teacher didn't have a problem with homosexuality; he just grew up under that presumption.

ADDITION:
Also, obviously, AIDS is most common among heterosexuals, because...duh, there are more hetero than homo.

Whew, I wonder how long that teacher lasted. Wrong wrong wrong.

AIDS was at first termed GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Disease), but after the discovery of the HIV and knowing it equally affects heterosexuals, they changed the term.

I think it started when a monkey with that virus bit a man. The virus got into the man's immune system through the bite wound i guess.