Dunce Americans Created 18 years ago2006-04-08 11:58:23 UTC by satchmo

Even if homosexuality is caused by enviroment, why would that make you accept them less? Noone wants to be gay, it's just a big disanvantage.

So is it a mutation, or what? If so how come every other mutation is viewed as bad, and not this one?

...

every other mutation is viewed as bad

evolution is bad

7th: If it's so clear that I have it all wrong, then what's RIGHT? What of what I've said is Wrong? You have not given any examples at all.

Satch: Sure there are homosexual ACTS in animals, but what is different between a dog humping another dog and the same dog humping a barstool? They just take out their sexual "buildup" on anything that is around. Also, the animal homosexuals are not EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. Nor do they form exclusive relationships with other animal homosexuals. An animal's main urge is to reproduce, in most cases, they will reproduce rather than eat. If this urge gets strong enough, the will take it out on anything that is around, including humans' legs.

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

If humans were just like any other animal, you would see normally straight males humping barstools and dogs and other males AS WELL AS females. Which is what these animals do. I've see female dogs in our neighbor's kennel hump their doghouses in the manner of males (they don't even have penises, after all). This does not mean that they are "doghouse fetishists," just like two male monkeys humping doesn't make them "homosexuals" per se.

Plus you can't advocate homosexuality because of animals and condemn infanticide and the castration of others' young, like happens in so many species. If we used this instance of animal homosexuality to justify it in humans, then we'd have to accept: Infanticide, killing in general, stealing, and the free mating with others' mates (adultery).

The stuff about Altrusim is interesting too, sorry on late replies, but I've not had much time to read it yet. Although, I would like to know what makes two humans stay together for a whole lifetime, whereas animals sho this odd type of affection to thier current partner and then move on.

Can you not see that arguing that homosexuality is 'not normal' and labelling it a 'mental illness' is quite astoundingly narrow-minded? Do you honestly believe you can cure homosexuality like it is a disease and that sexuality is something that is developed by culture rather than genetics? Why dont you start talking about how women are different to men therefore should be left in the kitchen as homemakers and obviously shouldnt be allowed to vote in a male-meritocracy!

Most of society (at least, in the UK) has realised just what shits we were to homosexuals, branding them as inferior or exacting rediculous punishments, finally the prejudice is subsiding, except for regressive people like you and those for whom religion has the final say.

whereas animals sho this odd type of affection to thier current partner and then move on.

For water fowls, all of them are monogamous. In fact, the Chinese chose a type of water fowl to represent the ultimate symbol of fidelity. If the mate dies, the other mate dies too.

Looking at the current state of divorce and infidelity, humans have much to learn from these animals.

I guess we shouldn't try to convince the rest of the world of their narrow-mindedness. They will not change their minds.

We'll just have to wait fifty years, when they finally realize (in their retirement homes) just how wrong they were.

Heh, everything started from discussing the dumbness of an american and it ended in discussion about gay rights and narrowminded people :D.
Interesting.

Jobabob: For me the Bible has the final say, not some "religion" where other people interpret it for me. But I'm not going to cite religious reasons on a forum that obviously holds no value to it. It's better to be objective and look at it strictly from a logical, scientific point of view Otherwise you're biased one way or another. People long ago thought that smallpox was an incurable punishment from thier gods, but we today have a vaccine. There's no telling what science will dicover next, unless we hold science back in the name of political correctness and tolerance.

Edit: Jobabob, How come you didn't argue when someone said that the Spartans were gay. Are they not a culture, and did they not induce homosexuality as a culture, and not with genetics?

Because apparently all americans are either gay or narrowminded. From what I gather.

Those birds sound cool. >60% of all marriages in the USA end in divorce.

Its all about how we, as individuals see the world and the things within it and how we interpret things to feed our emotions/beliefs.
Not all of us feel the same on issues of moral judgement, for instance, if I was to masturbate (being a male) some people believe this to be of a homosexual nature because I would be touching a penis (even if it is my penis).
These people are known as insecure, un-educated, single minded over religious nutters who themselves have a mental disorder. (Bunch of sheep realy)
Those type of people believe that all gays will go to hell and burn for their sins. I myself am not religious but have sound moral judgment, It doesn't matter if you are gay, black, green or yellow, nor do I care if you believe in UFO'S or God, you believe what you want to believe but dont condemn a way of life, Hittler was famous for that.
I myself am not gay, my brother was, he was born that way, and yes he died that way (Aids). Its easy to stereotype people. Oh and for the record if I went to an all girls school I would be the naughtiest Lesbian on the planet, I just love girls.

Sorry to hear about your brother, LeFtY.

Even though I don't have any close friends who are gay, I feel strongly about their plight. I just can't stand the injustice of it all.

Has anyone seen "Brokeback Mountain" yet? It's a great movie. Don't listen to the religious fanatics attempts at censoring it.

Edit: Jobabob, How come you didn't argue when someone said that the Spartans were gay. Are they not a culture, and did they not induce homosexuality as a culture, and not with genetics?

Didnt read the post for about 4 pages because I was rather offended by it, at least I now realise your actual reason for everything you have said so far. Im an utter aethiest so I find religion hard to comprehend sometimes, but at least I see that you are coming from a religious rather than a scientific standpoint and I respect religion in the same way Lefty does.

Sorry about your brother, Lefty. But i don't really think that anyone could possible call jackin' it "a homosexual act." That's just silly. And I think gays are sinners just like everyone else, and they'll go to hell if they don't repent, etc... God is not going to give them special treatment over the rest of us degenerates. Enough about my religion, that will just start more crap. How an you talk aobut not condemning a way of life, when you condemn hitler's? You condemn my way of life as a person who is strong in my faith.

What is with bashing religion, anyway? Some ppl just don't like buttsex. Religious intolerance is the same as intolerance of someone's sexual preference.

If you truly were open-minded and "progressive," you would not persecute Pedophiles for their sexual preference. I mean after all, it's gotta be natural and not their fault. I, as a former cattle rancher, have seen fully adult bulls mounting 2nd year heiffers. So it's perfectly natural, no?

Jobabob: don't you see that I have nto even MENTIONED religion in any of my posts? How can I be talking from a religious standpoint? What religion is logic and science. I was being objective. I could tell you were Atheist.

What is with bashing religion, anyway? Some ppl just don't like buttsex. Religious intolerance is the same as intolerance of someone's sexual preference.

Well at least the gay person can see, touch, talk and communicate directly with their partener, Religious people believe in a fairy tale, somthing they may never see (Heaven). Some people believe its just an excuse to hide from reality and their own sins.
And only the die hard religious fanatics would condemn gays, the average straight inteligent people can accept them.

oh and one more thing, I did not mention your name in my post did I, so don't flatter yourself, I was not having a go at you personaly

Pedophiles, for the most part, physically and/or mentally harm their victims (lovers?), forcing themselves on them against their wills. That's what makes it wrong - unlike homosexuality.

Also, being religious is fine by me as long as you don't try to impose your religion on others (Cough, gaybashing christians). Seriously, an argument like "You're all going to hell cause you're gay!" really doesn't matter if you believe that hell is a load of bullshit.

I'm actually agreeing to that "Homosexuality isn't natural". It isn't, if you look at it from a realistic re-productive perspective. But why should we bother with it? I believe the right to free will and choice stands above trying to make the whole world conform with some non-existant norm. IE, leave gays alone to their business and don't try to cure people who don't want to be cured.

What is with bashing religion, anyway? Some ppl just don't like buttsex. Religious intolerance is the same as intolerance of someone's sexual preference.

The difference is that the "people who like butt-sex" don't start wars in the name of fudgepacking, blow them selves up in the name of it, or beat up those damn Hetros for the most part. Religion is bashed because its the justification used for irration hate in the world. Again, should be pointed out that holy people and religious fanatics are on completely opposite sides of humanity, despite seemly reading from the same hymnsheet (pardon the pun).

Good pun actually.

Sure, wars and a bunch of other stuff are started in the name of religion, but it's not EVERY religious person's fault. Just like it's not every gay person's fault that AIDS is so prevalent.

Zombieloffe: That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. I don't include my religion in my debates, because it's not gonna matter to any of the people who don't beleive like i do.

More later.

Random controversial fact of the day--RCFOTD:

Dyslexia is contagious, in case you didn't know...highly, at that.

:scared:

Did you know theres a form of ADD known as AADD? The extra A, or scientists say, means AQUIRED.

What BS.

If you truly were open-minded and "progressive," you would not persecute Pedophiles for their sexual preference. I mean after all, it's gotta be natural and not their fault.

This is a stupid argument, paedophiles have sex, WITH CHILDREN. Children cannot consent to sex, therefore it is against their human rights and can in no way be compared to homosexuality which is between two consenting adults. NAMBLA can go die in a hole for all I care, they are the most fucked up organisation that has ever been made.

As previously stated, the distinction is in whether people are harmed by it.

Homosexuality in itself never hurts anyone, and don't mention AIDS. Because if you do, then anyone who has ever had sex and STD should be branded as sinners and be damned to hell by religious fanatics.

Religion, on the other hand, has killed millions of people. It has its good sides too, but as long as religion exists on this planet, world peace would be impossible.

In my opinion, religion does way too much harm than good. True, it's abused by bad and ignorant people, but the result is the same.

Without religious differences, we would have so much less hatred in humanity.

Its the religion that starts the wars not the people. Religion influences the people into doing stupid things. I have been both religious and quite atheist in my life, obviously atheist being the latter chronologically.

Try not to be too simplistic with disorders, diseases, and such. Some happen at different levels, others either happen or they don't. Cancer usually starts with one cell, then becomes quite large. The thing is we don't see the cancer so we don't consider it cancer. Once it is visible, it becomes cancer. Same goes with psychological problems. Things like ADD have syptoms that classify it as ADD. Once theys symptoms get to a certain level of visibility, it becomes classified as ADD. Thats where people confuse things. We normally show these symptoms at a near non-existant level, once things escalade, they become known as ADD.

If you take for example high blood pressure. Technically, I don't have "High Blood Pressure", but it is higher than normal, and most likely caused by the same things that cause High Blood Pressure.

This obviously doesn't apply to everything, and I expect that, but psychology is not exempt. Many things in genetics lead to very definitive traits. Sickle Cell Anemia is genetic, and happens to be either had or not had.

None of this really applies to the homosexual issue, as it is quite complex.

When someone calls you a gay fag doesn't that make you straight? Hmm..

No, that makes you doubly gay, like a smart genius isn't a dumbass, unless someone refers to themselves as a smart genius.

Jobabob: Society and the governments are the only things that say that children cannot consent. Sex is perfectly natural, no matter who it's between according to you folks; male, female, whatever! So, why do you listen to society's idea of who can consent? The children consent like anyone else. Pedophilia is like prostitution, only the payment is cookies and candy. And what is prostitution if not just casual sex where one party makes a living? The children LOVE thier "sponsors."

Professa: Sickle Cell Anemia only happens in Black people: fun fact.

You know if everyone listened to what all the religions have to say instead of using them to justify thier own actions. There's not a religion besides voodoo and Satanism that says to kill other people.

There's not a religion besides voodoo and Satanism that says to kill other people.

Very true, except that real people use religion to justify their acts of atrocity all the time.

Since we can't change these people (religion certainly has failed), we might as well remove religion so that they cannot use it as a tool of terror.

I am not affiliated with any religion, yet I tend to favor Buddhism. It's very rare to hear about a Buddhist terrorist. Muslim and Christian terrorists are everywhere, however. In the history of Buddhism, there has never been a crusade or mass terrorism.

So is certain religion to blame for the suffering and hatred in this world? You tell me.

"Without religious differences, we would have so much less hatred in humanity."

Without differences in general we would have so much less hatred because we'd be mindless sheep, accepting everything we hear as "the truth" and not bothering to question it because we wouldn't want to cause any tensions that might lead to gasp non-friendliness.

If we removed everything that people used to make thier atrocities easier, we wouldn't have anything except popsicle sticks. And I'd use those for pedophilia for sure. If we removed everything people use for terorism, we would remove EVERYTHING. Every infrastructure, every mode of transportation and communication.

Fact is, every difference that exists will cause intolerance of another type.

That's why world peace can never be achieved.

It can only exist in the small world of beauty pageantry.

There's not a religion besides voodoo and Satanism that says to kill other people.

I meant that they influence their actions, but to a large degree. The examples of such are very much real in everyday life. Does the Christian belief state that "Thou Shall Not Kill"? That is influence, though positive, very powerful to those that hold this to be a deadly sin. Terrorist believe in a religion which they hold to be very dear. If two religions hold to their beliefs dearly, they have a high magnitude of action. When one slips onto the other, hell brakes loose.

I think Satchmo meant more so with his previous arguement that without religious DIFFERENCES, we would notice less hatred. If everyone was the same religion, lets say strictly Catholic, and followed the Commandments, Beatitudes, the Bible, to death, we would see no fighting. Everyone who follows a straight path will not collide.

I've always had this feeling that in the future, not to distant, we will be under one of the greatest times ever. There will be a defined path for humanity, not through religion. No one will die. The truth about the universe will be known. Its weird, I've actually had dreams about it. It's pretty cool though. Maybe I'm just seeing things, but I feel this even after I dream, like its actually happening. What do you guys expect in the future? I have also dremt that if we never achieve this in the future, if we are still where we are at now, something has gone awfully wrong. I've had very few dreams like this but dreams just feel so real.

Even beauty pageant contestants have sharp painted nails, Satch.

Prof. Oak: In the future we will unite in globalism and everything will fall apart. People will become like those in "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. We will only follow a path of hedonism, and then we will all be destroyed by cataclismic natural disasters.

I don't know, I'm sure someone will be genius enough to figure out the whole thing. Maybe people will be smart enough to actually listen to this person, then we don't have split ideas, resulting in even more chaos. If the right man was incharge of the population, I would imagine everything to be dandy. If Hitler wasn't mentally ill, we might have seen a possible super power today. Then again, all it takes is one person to screw it up.

You guys watch too much "Star Trek".

And you are being too optimistic, in my opinion.

Adulthood has transformed me from an idealist to a cynic. Everyone is greedy (except my wife), and everyone is inherently selfish (again, except my wife).

I know everyone is greedy, selfish, liars, haters, and hedonistic (except my lady [and probably Satch's wife{and hugh}])

People are inherently evil, and clever enough to come up with justifications for the things they do, and if they're not, they are good enough to latch on to anyone who says they can do what they want.

Also, I meant to ask earlier: do those birds who stay together for all thier lives ever form homosexual "marriages?" and one one of them dies, the other one does?

I don't know too much about those water fowls beyond their tendency for life-long bounds.

Well, what would've REALLY made a point is if you could find some animal that did gay marriages, and benefitted from them evolutionarily. I'd crap a brick, if that'd happened. lol

Anyway, goodnight for now. It's been a good debate!

Its entertaining to think an intelligent person thinks this way.

I admit I am a selfish person when it comes to people who are not my close friends or family. Its a kill or be killed world, I'm not going to befriend my coworker! I'm going to surpass him and make him work under me! There is only one way to succeed, look out for yourself until you get where you're going, then concentrate onther matters.

This probably isn't me, but it's the way I feel at this very moment.

Society and the governments are the only things that say that children cannot consent.

ffs, a child has no sexual urge, nor are their bodies ready for sex. So no, a child cannot consent. If they do, they've been manipulated. There is no way in hell a child would agree to sex.

Jobabob: I find it entertaining/sad that you all would think the way you do. That's just the way these issues are. Lots of strong feelings.

Fetuses in the womb have been documented masturbating. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/BIBLIO_CHORG.HTM
see "Meizner" and about 100 other references. If children didn't have any sexual urge then why are they masturbating before they are even born? Pedophilia is very natural. Otherwise there would not be adults who love children and there would not be all these sexually frustrated children looking for "sponsors." Plus, the kids get candy... That is like the purpose of life for a kid: "get free candy." THAT'S how a child agrees to sex.

Get it into your fucking head, paedophilia hurts children, they have SEX WITH CHILDREN. How can you argue that this is in any way 'right' for a society just because we 'allow' homosexuality to occur??

Masturbation does not equate to sex. Children enjoy their parents reading to them at bedtime too, does that mean they lust after their mommies?

When children masturbate, they do it for the physical pleasure. They don't associate that with any sexual feelings. It just plainly feels good.

I do hope you can distinguish between the two.

How does it hurt them? They get candy and most pedophiles have small weeners anyway. I am arguing that it is "right" because it is a sexual preference, and we cannot discriminate against that. It's got nothing to do with homosexuality, other than the fact that they are both "unorthodox sexual preferences."

Facts are:
1. children have sexual urges
2. Some adults like children
3. There are examples in nature of pedophilia, proving that it's natural.

How is it any different from the proof that I was presented for homosexuality?

[edit] Satchmo: Why else would we have sex? if it didn't feel good we wouldn't do it. The reason we have the inherent urge for it is because we have an urge for all things that feel good, like the endorphins released upon eating.

1. children have sexual urges

That depends on what you call a child. Most humans start to have sexual urges around the age of 12. There are exeptions though, so don't start saying stuff like: "I had sexual urges since I was 9"

Elon, read what I said above. Children start having the desire for sexual gratification in the womb. There are more than a few documented cases of fetuses masturbating.

[edit] and i guess I would call anyone under 18 "children" since that si the age of "consent" or so says society.

Homosexual paedophilia (or homopaedosexiliua), now obviously I agree with that

I actually LOLed at that.

Elon, read what I said above. Children start having the desire for sexual gratification in the womb. There are more than a few documented cases of fetuses masturbating.

Again you are wrong. The hormons that start the urges are only released at the age of 12. The body is still developing until then. Maybe the orgins are ready and the female already has egg cells(how do you call them in english) but a 5 years old kids usally don't have sexual urges. You make me sick, do you really think 5 years old kids have such desires? Did you have such desires? I remember that I didn't!

Back it up with facts, Elon. and no wikipedia.

If *I* make you sick, you should try talking to someone who really IS a pedophile.

I don't remember having sexual urges, but my brothers tell me that I always had my hands in my pants. One of Freud's stages of phychosexual development in children is the "phallic stage" which starts at like age 2 or so. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/sexual_development.html

Satch: this page also answers whether children lust after thier mommies.

WikiPedia = Truth.
Comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is 19th century nonsense, stop being an idiot.

nickelplate, you can have sex with your three-year-old daughter, since it would gratify her sexual urges. I would raise mine without the sex until she's ready.

dont forget to give her candy afterwards, they dont know better so its ok